Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about the Government-appointed directors of Short Brothers and Harland of Belfast.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement as to the chairmanship of Short Brothers and Harland.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made in appointing a chairman of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Mr.
Wrangham. the present Chairman, and Sir Cyril Musgrave have tendered their resignations to take effect from the end of this month. I hope to announce the names of their successors shortly.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the effect on morale in this firm through the sacking of the Chairman, the long interval and the resignation of another Government-appointed director, saying, as he did, that he was truthfully fed up with the Minister's interference? Will he not underestimate the effect of this and ensure that it never happens again?

Mr. Benn: I hope that nothing the hon. Gentleman says will make the position more difficult. He knows the circumstances of what occurred in the

summer. I shall announce a successor as soon as I can.

Mr. Stratton Mills: But is the Minister aware of the resentment caused among the directors and staff by his treatment of Mr. Wrangham? Why has it taken over six months from the time that Mr. Wrangham's departure was announced to get another director? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the grave harm done to morale?

Mr. Benn: The prospects for Shorts in terms of its own work load and future are brighter than they have been for some time. I am conscious of the need to make the appointment.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Does not the Minister realise that the Government are a 70 per cent, majority shareholder in Shorts and that it is shocking that they should behave in this way? When will they get on with making this vital appointment and stop all the delay?

Mr. Benn: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If we are responsible for the firm, we cannot be described as interfering in making the appointments.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Wrangham has been supported by all the other directors of the company, that he has rendered great service to the company and that the uncertainty created by his action is most damaging to the prospects of the company?

Mr. Benn: I have paid tribute to Mr. Wrangham's work for Shorts ewer the years, but I do not think it desirable to discuss personal appointments in the House in this way.

Mr. Corfield: Is it not clear that, if the more favourable situation in Shorts is due to Mr. Wrangham, the people of Northern Ireland cannot possibly have any confidence in the Governments regional development policy while this sort of action goes on?

Mr. Benn: I think that the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland in the regional development policy is built on the fact that Shorts' work load on Skyvan and podding, and other contracts are going ahead.

Londonderry (Science-based Industries)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Technology what science-based industries will be encouraged in the Londonderry area.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): The primary responsibility for promoting new industry in Northern Ireland rests with the Northern Ireland Government. The Department keeps in touch with firms in the Londonderry area regarding their plans and no opportunity is lost of interesting firms in the possibility of development in Londonderry.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If these industries are to be created, would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in this area towns such as Strabane and Limavady have the highest unemployment figure in the United Kingdom? Can he tell us anything about the smelter industries?

Mr. Fowler: The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question should be addressed elsewhere. I must emphasise that plans for setting up manufacturing capacity in Londonderry are primarily for industrialists. They are offered inducements by the Northern Ireland Government comparable with those available in development areas in this country. We are all well aware of the problems in Londonderry.

Ministry of Power (Consultation)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology what is the machinery of consultation between his Department and the Ministry of Power on matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Benn: There is continuing contact at all levels on matters which concern both Departments.

Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend agree that his Ministry has some responsibility for the technology of the derivatives from coal? Is he aware that in this November's issue of the New Scientist there were reports of sulphur being extracted on the sites of conventional coal-fired power stations? What part will his Department play in this new technology?

Mr. Benn: That is a specific question. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is there adequate contact over the price of shipbuilding steel, which is causing grave anxiety in the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been a great number of discussions on this question involving both Departments.

Mr. Spriggs: In view of my right hon. Friend's responsibility for the derivatives from coal, what is he doing about this matter? Will he make a statement?

Mr. Benn: I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) that if he puts down a specific question I will make a full report to the House.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how long we must wait before perhaps the most important issue of all—it is of mutual importance to both Departments—is fully considered, namely, the future of the nuclear reactor industry?

Mr. Benn: The Select Committee's Report came out not so very long ago. It raised very important questions. A number of consultations are required. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no delay on this matter.

Wear Shipyards

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a further statement on the merger prospects for Wear shipyards.

Mr. Benn: The three companies concerned are now conducting a joint examination of the situation. They are in touch with the Shipbuilding Industry Board, but have not been able to make any announcement or submit any proposals.

Mr. Willey: I believe that the technical committee which has been set up is making progress. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that I am not Industry Board has not been sufficiently alone in believing that the Shipbuilding positive and dynamic in promoting the


negotiations? Will he see that the time-table is set for the future progress of the negotiations?

Mr. Benn: Like my right hon. Friend, I am anxious to make progress in this matter, but since the consultants' report is being studied by the firms concerned, it is not for me to tell the Shipbuilding Industry Board to handle this matter.

Mr. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend recognise the deep concern in this matter of the trade unions concerned, particularly the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions? Will he try to see that wherever possible the leaders of these unions in the area should be consulted about the results of mergers, particularly as they affect the men on the shop floor?

Mr. Benn: It is well understood that the co-operation of the unions is vital for the effective implementation of the Geddes proposals. The S.I.B. takes every opportunity to stress this.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Willey.

Mr. Willey: In view of the delays, will my right hon. Friend undertake to discuss this matter —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. Gentleman for Question No. 6.

Mr. Willey: In view of the uncertainty in this matter, I give notice that I will endeavour to raise it at the earliest opportunity on the Adjournment.

Nuclear Marine Propulsion

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will set up a departmental committee to examine the possibilities of nuclear marine propulsion in the light of the experimental work being carried out in other industrial countries, details of which are in his possession.

Mr. Benn: I have nothing to add to the statement I made in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 5th December, in which I made it clear that the issue is being re-examined.—[Vol. 755, c. 259.]

Mr. Willey: That was a helpful reply, but in view of the Select Committee's recommendations and of the danger that

we may lose ground to our competitors in shipbuilding, will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again urgently?

Mr. Benn: I am looking at it again urgently. That was what my right hon. Friend complimented me on doing. The problem is not whether we can have a reactor in a ship, but whether it will be economic. That has always been the argument. We now bring together under the Ministry of Technology the Atomic Energy Authority, the shipbuilding industry, the nuclear industry, the marine engine industry and the British Shipbuilding Research Association. Therefore, it falls for me to examine it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would not the Minister agree that a committee similar to the old Padmore Committee might well be the best method of accelerating a decision in this matter? We have waited a long time for the decision. Although Lord Penney's voice is always well listened to, surely there are other considerations which demand other action.

Mr. Benn: Nobody has waited for a decision. There has been a decision that we will go ahead with this project when it shows promise of being economic. That is the criterion by which we have to judge all our investments. Nobody doubts that it can be done technically. I do not think that a committee is necessary when all the responsibilities in this matter have been, for this purpose among others, brought within my Department.

Motor Car Industry

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the output and export of cars during 1968 following devaluation and the change in hire-purchase conditions.

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend expects car output in 1968 to be significantly higher than this year, mainly as a result of an increase in exports following the competitive advantages offered by devaluation.

Mr. Roberts: Is my hon. Friend aware that that news will be very welcome in South Bedfordshire and other car-producing areas. Can he indicate whether the total output of cars and commercial vehicles in 1968 is likely to be anywhere near the peak total of 2½ million in 1964?

Mr. Fowler: It is much too early to give such a detailed forecast. We certainly hope that production will be high, but I would not like to give precise figures.

Mr. David Price: Was the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend based on market analysis or was it merely a hope, bearing in mind the statement made by the Ford Motor Company of the effect of devaluation on sales in the first year of devaluation? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people in the motor car industry take the view that the first year will be difficult and that the real prospects of better sales from devaluation will come in the second year?

Mr. Fowler: The assessments made by individual companies vary widely. We in the Ministry of Technology are waiting for the final assessments of the individual motor car companies. It is still too early to give any realistic or precise figures.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Technology what arrangements he has made with the motor industry for implementing the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes regarding the dealer franchise system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fowler: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave my hon. Friend on 14th November, in which I said that discussions were in progress.—[Vol. 754, c. 57.]

Mr. Barnes: Would my hon. Friend not agree that this is a very important report, because it could lead to the public getting a better deal from the motor industry than it has got now? Could he give an assurance that the little Neddy which has been set up to look at the garage side of the business will be brought into the discussions that are now taking place?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this report. I assure him that the E.D.C. for vehicle distribution and repair has already discussed the report.

Machine Tools

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what is the percentage change in total value of net new home

orders for United Kingdom machine tools during the current year to date compared with the corresponding figures for 1966 and 1965; what is the expected level of net new orders during the coming year; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): It is estimated that net new home orders for the first 10 months of 1967 were, respectively, about 24 per cent, and 17½ per cent, below those for the equivalent period in 1965 and 1966. It is not practicable to forecast net new orders, but I would expect some rise in home demand for machine tools during next year.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the importance of the home trade in machine tool manufacture, are not those figures the most eloquent testimony to the fate of the machine tool industry since it acquired the sponsorship of the Ministry of Technology?

Dr. Bray: No. I am sure that the hon. Member has observed that export orders this year are up 34 per cent, on last year. The industry is much to be congratulated on this splendid achievement.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the statement he has made this afternoon shows that all that the Minister's predecessor said at the Exhibition of the Machine Tool Trades Association at Olympia in May, 1966, has completely failed to achieve its object? What steps are being taken to ensure that real encouragement is given to the industry?

Dr. Bray: A great many steps: pre-production orders, risk insurance for the stock-piling of machine tools, help with development of machine tools by research contracts, and increased investment grants, buyer credit scheme for the industry, and to this very wide range of stimuli the industry is responding well by bringing in new capacity, and continuing to do so.

Small Firms (Information)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Minister of Technology what special facilities exist in his Department for giving advice to small firms in need of technological or scientific information.

Mr. Benn: My Department has established a national network of 63 industrial liaison centres at technical colleges and universities specifically to advise small firms how to make greater use of existing technological and scientific information.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Reply. Will he accept that small firms generally seem to have little opportunity of finding out what assistance and advice is available to them in the Ministry? Will he consider going further and setting up, on the United States model, small business agencies which will assist small firms?

Mr. Benn: I think that if my hon. Friend looks at the various services which exist he will find that there is plenty of opportunity to get access to the production engineering advisory service, the low cost automation centres, the use of new industrial units, and that the "Neddy" office has published a handbook on productivity services which meets the need which he has in mind.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the most effective things that he can do to help small firms is to get better co-ordination between the activities of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and himself over resources such as library facilities and data, and that, in so far as his Department is concerned, computery perhaps has a part to play, otherwise he should keep out of the hair of these small firms.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman really cannot be in touch with the firms which have used the services, because what we are doing is providing a communication net on to which they can connect. As regards contact between myself and the Department of Education and Science, the latter runs the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, and discussions are going on to see how this can be broadened to help industry more generally.

Thermonuclear Fusion

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Technology what expenditure is proposed in future for the British research programme on the control of thermonuclear fusion.

Mr. Benn: The intended reduction in expenditure on the fusion programme was indicated in my statement of 26th July and I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 751, Cols. 644–8.]

Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the terrifying problem of atomic waste which will arise from this concentration on the fission programme, particularly as the Government are to generate so much electricity by nuclear power? Will he take steps to rehabilitate the programme for nuclear fusion?

Mr. Benn: The Culham Establishment was set up to provide a means of generating electricity by means of fusion. It is now generally recognised all over the world that this programme is well over the horizon, 10, 20 or 25 years ahead, and on the advice of the Authority I assented to its recommendations that the programme should be run down. I think it was right and that I was right to accept its advice.

Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about the transfer of Culham from the A.E.A. to the Science Research Council, so that fusion can take its place with other long-term scientific projects in any review which the Government may be making in sacred cows on long-term science?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has made this point before, and he will have noticed that recently I announced that part of the work at Culham on the astro-physical side is to be undertaken by the Science Research Council. I have told the hon. Gentleman before, and I tell him again now, that I take seriously the proposals that he makes.

Atomic Energy Authority

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has for changing the present structure of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.

Mr. Benn: None at present.

Mr. Alison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is timely to consider a change? Is he aware of the abysmal record of the United Kingdom in the export of nuclear reactors, and is it not


right to consider restructuring the Authority on the lines of the American Atomic Energy Authority?

Mr. Benn: This is the subject of the Select Committee's Report on the nuclear power industry. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are considering this Report, but I have no proposals to put forward at the moment.

Shipbuilding Industry

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the price advantage brought to the shipbuilding industry by devaluation; and what evidence he has that this is bringing in fresh orders to British ship-yards.

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend expects devaluation to improve significantly the industry's competitive position in world markets, but the effect on prices cannot be accurately estimated. There has already been an increase in the number of inquiries received by British shipbuilders. It is a bit too early to be sure how many of these will result in orders.

Mr. Digby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, to convert inquiries into fixed price contracts, more certainty is needed about the price of steel and about the whole of Government economic policy?

Mr. Fowler: I am not responsible for the whole of Government economic policy. On the subject of steel prices, discussions between the shipbuilders and the Steel Corporation about the future price of steel are now in progress, and I cannot anticipate the results of those discussions. My right hon. Friend and the Minister of Power will keep in close touch with those concerned.

Mr. David Price: If the hon. Gentleman wants to help British shipbuilding after devaluation, will he explain why the Government have refused the orders of the South African Government for frigates to Yarrow's and submarines to Scott's?

Mr. Fowler: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question.

Northern Region

Mr. Urwin: asked the Minister of Technology what was the gross annual amount expended in research and develop-

ment in the Northern Region from 1962; what is the estimated amount for 1967; and what is the comparison with other regions.

Dr. Bray: The total amount spent by the Department in 1966–67 in research and development in the United Kingdom was £255 million of which £1·6 million was spent in the Northern Region. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of expenditure in previous years.

Mr. Urwin: I thank my hon. Friend for that Reply, but does not this heavily emphasise the necessity to do much more in research and development in the Northern Region? Will he undertake to treat this matter with a greater degree of urgency than hitherto?

Dr. Bray: Yes, it does indicate the need for increased expenditure on research and development in the Northern Region. This is a matter of concern, and the Department is examining ways in which this end can be achieved.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Could my hon. Friend give an assurance that a special effort will be made to link up work with universities and individual firms to see that the most practical results can be obtained?

Dr. Bray: Yes, I am personally taking part in discussions to that end, and also with the polytechnics and International Research and Development in Newcastle.

Following are the details:

The amount spent by the Department in research and development in the Northern Region, and in the rest of the U.K., during the years 1962–63 to 1965–66 has been as follows:—

In the Northern Region
In the rest of the United Kingdom



£m.
£m.


1962–63
1·0
240


1963–64
2·6
229


1964–65
2·2
234


1965–66
1·8
253

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

B211 Engine

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the Rolls Royce 211 engine.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology whether he proposes to give


public funds to the development of the Rolls 211 engine.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): The RB211 is a smaller scale version of the RB207 engine selected to power the European airbus. Rolls Royce are offering the engine for the American airbus. The Department is giving financial support to the initial development of the engine and has undertaken to give financial support for full development if a firm order is achieved which promises to lead to substantial production orders.

Mr. Marten: Can the Minister confirm the vital importance to our balance of payments of selling this engine to the Americans for the American airbus? I believe that £1,000 million is involved. Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government intend to see this proposition through right up to the hilt?

Mr. Stonehouse: I confirm that this order would be extremely important for Rolls Royce. That is why the Government have throughout provided every possible assistance to Rolls Royce.

Mr. Rankin: Is my hon. Friend aware of the continuing protests about noise caused by aircraft? Does he realise that this piece of technology is one of the quietest creations which has ever been made, and will he further its advance in every possible way?

Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. One of the attractions of this engine will be its quietness.

Mr. Fortescue: Has not the Government's decision not to support the BAC211 made the task of Rolls Royce in selling this engine to the United States far more difficult?

Mr. Stonehouse: Not at all, because the time scale for the BAC211 would have been behind the application of the RB211 in an American airbus.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend convinced that the European airbus will have only two engines?

Mr. Stonehouse: There is a later Question about that.

Mr. Onslow: The Minister did not answer the question of my hon. Friend

the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). No matter what the Government may have been doing up to now, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance to see this engine through in the matter of finance up to the point at which it can be sold?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are helping to finance the development of the RB211. Fifty per cent, of the cost is now being funded by ourselves. Rolls Royce are highly appreciative of the assistance which we are providing, and we will continue to give that assistance until Rolls Royce are in a position to land the order for the American airbus. When they do that, we will, of course, fund the full development of the RB211.

Concorde Aircraft

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is yet satisfied that the Concorde aircraft will not require to be subjected to restrictions on its operation over inhabited areas by reason of sonic boom; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Technology what difficulties he envisages with regard to the operation of the Concorde aircraft over inhabited areas on account of the noise it will make.

Mr. Stonehouse: No decision has yet been made. I am in consultation with the President of the Board of Trade about the regulation of supersonic transport over this country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In expressing the hope that the Minister will note and follow the spelling in the Question, may I ask him whether, as this issue is vital to the sales of this aircraft, he will use all the resources of the Government to get the point cleared up at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, indeed. We realise the extreme importance of this matter, but it is too early yet to come to any decision about it.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the simple fact that, once it is in operation, the only Concorde that can pass over this country is the one flying from Frankfurt and that all other Concordes coming from Europe must fly over the English Channel?

Mr. Storehouse: I am sorry not to be able to follow my hon. Friend in that remark. The position is not quite as simple as that.

Mr. Corfield: In view of the hon. Gentleman's reply, can he tell us what assessment his Department has made of the effects upon the economic operation of this aircraft if a ban were to be imposed upon the making of supersonic booms over land?

Mr. Storehouse: We estimate that the total market would be reduced to about 65 per cent, in the event of a complete ban on overland flight.

Mr. Dobson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to start international discussions now on banning supersonic flight over land and not to wait until ours is the only aircraft which is affected?

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that that would be wise. We are, of course, in touch with the countries concerned, particularly France and the United States, and we will, of course, co-ordinate with them in any decision which we make.

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the American experience show that the sonic bangs which can be expected from full-sized airliners are much less than those which could be calculated from scaling up the results of tests on smaller aircraft? Therefore, will the Minister not enter into any commitments until the prototype Concordes have flown and the results are known?

Mr. Stonehouse: That is a helpful remark. We cannot be certain about the characteristics of the bang that Concorde will create until Concorde is flying. There is a great deal that we can learn, and we are learning, from the intensive tests carried out in the United States.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Minister of Technology what have been the results of his recent discussions with the British Aviation Corporation concerning the financing of the production run of Concord aircraft; what proportions of Government and private capital are to be used; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: I am now working out a scheme in conjunction with the companies and banks concerned, and shall report to the House when negotiations have been completed. Meanwhile, the first steps in Concorde production are not being held up.

Mr. Dobson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Reply. Will he confirm that he will continue to press strongly for B.A.C. to put money into this development, as it seems to many people outside the aircraft industry that its failure to come across with some money for production costing shows a lack of faith by it in this very important project?

Mr. Benn: I would rather not comment on this point, but say that these negotiations are confidential and that I shall report as soon as I can.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As the Concorde will not go into production, would not my right hon. Friend do well, in spite of the objections which we hear from the benches opposite, to recognise that this is a sacred cow which he must sacrifice?

Mr. Benn: I would have thought that it was a rather different project from a sacred cow.

Sir A. V. Harvey: When Britain is struggling to export her products of this nature in the future, will the right hon. Gentleman deprecate the statement from his hon. Friend that this aircraft will never fly?

Mr. Benn: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman knows that a lot of critical remarks have been made on both sides of the House about various projects.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Answer the question.

Mr. Benn: The Government's view on Concorde has been made absolutely clear by myself and by my hon. Friend. The programme is on schedule, the production work has begun, and there is no doubt on this matter other than that created by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. May I make the point, as HANSARD will show, that I said that the Concorde would not go into production. I did not say that it would not fly.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Corfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in view of the comments which have been made in the past from his side of the House about so-called prestige projects, this country badly needs something to be proud of? As it cannot be proud of the present Government, will he assure us that he will stick to Concorde?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman knows the position on this very well. Most of the doubts which have been raised in recent months have been raised by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.— [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] That is true, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know it. The programme is on schedule, the production work is going ahead, and, as I have explained today, and whenever a Question has been put down on it, the first plane is due to fly in the spring and the next one in the summer. That is a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman.

BAC 211 and Trident 3B Aircraft

Sir E. Errington: asked the Minister of Technology what evidence he has received of interest by foreign airlines in the British Aircraft Corporation 211 aircraft.

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Technology what evidence he has received of interest by foreign airlines in the Hawker-Siddeley Trident 3B aircraft.

Mr. Stonehouse: I have kept in close touch with the manufacturers about the overseas sales prospects of the Trident 3B and the BAC 211 but the details must remain commercially confidential as no overseas airline has made a public announcement about an option for either aircraft.

Sir E. Errington: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the people who have shown an interest will have an opportunity to study these matters?

Mr. Stonehouse: We have not had any indication from an overseas airline of any concrete interest in the BAC 211 or the Trident 3B. We will give every assistance to the manufacturers of British aircraft to promote sales of their planes abroad. That will always apply.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the Minister confirm that if either of these aircraft were

to be ordered by South African airlines, the same support would be given to the aircraft companies concerned as if they were ordered by any other airline?

Mr. Stonehouse: Of course. We are very anxious to support the sale of civil aircraft to any part of the world.

Airbus Project

Sir E. Errington: asked the Minister of Technology, in the course of his negotiations on the possible construction of an Anglo-French-German airbus, what undertaking he has received from British European Airways as to how many of these aircraft they would purchase.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what, in view of Lufthansa's statement about their aircraft purchasing intentions for the 1970s, is the present position of the Anglo-French-German airbus project.

Mr. Stonehouse: The project is going well. National airline commitments are neither required nor expected before next summer, when the aircraft will be fully specified and priced.

Sir E. Errington: Will the hon. Gentleman, if necessary, be prepared to exercise compulsion on B.E.A. to buy this aircraft?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am fully satisfied that when this aircraft is defined, B.E.A., which has a requirement in the 1970s for an aircraft of this size and type, will wish to buy it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend will be aware that British manufacturers are required to build down to a noise level. Can he give an assurance that this international project will equally be required to comply with the noise level applied to British manufacturers?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are confident that the European airbus, because it will have the RB207 engine, will be significantly quieter than existing aircraft flying on European routes.

Mr. Fortescue: In view of the notable lack of interest and enthusiasm by both Lufthansa and B.E.A. in this aircraft, would the Minister maintain his previous statement that 75 orders are necessary before this aircraft will go ahead?

Mr. Stonehouse: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Airlines in Europe are taking a very great interest indeed in the European airbus, and B.E.A. is assisting in advising on the project during its development stage. I confirm that we will require a commitment of 75 before we go ahead to the next stage, but I do not share the gloom and depression that seems to emanate from the Opposition.

RB207 and RB211 Engines

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology what evidence he has received of interest by foreign airlines in the Rolls-Royce advanced technology engines, RB207andRB211.

Mr. Stonehouse: The new technology engines RB207 and RB211 have aroused widespread airline interest. These engines promise to be particularly attractive to operators by virtue of their economy of operation and because they will be significantly quieter.

Mr. Onslow: Can the Minister say what scale of Government funds is committed to the development of both engines, and will he give an assurance that their saleability, which will depend on their early availability, will not be held up by penny-pinching on the part of the Government?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are associated with the French and Germans as partners in the full development of the RB207 for the European airbus. Concerning the RB211, we are continuing to give it every support during the development stage.

Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable anxiety has been expressed on the Continent about the European airbus having only two engines? Will he tell me whether this is the appropriate moment to repeat my earlier question?

Mr. Stonehouse: I would ask my hon. Friend to await Question No. 26.

Mr. Marten: If Lufthansa does not express its intention of ordering the European airbus by a certain time next year, and, therefore, the airbus does not go ahead, because I believe that was one of the pre-conditions, what will happen about the RB207?

Mr. Stonehouse: The Lufthansa commitment is not expected, nor required, until next summer. We have assurances from German Ministers that they will honour the agreement they signed a few months ago, which involved a commitment by the national airline to this particular aircraft. There is no doubt that the development of the RB207 depends on the European airbus going ahead, but I am confident that it will go ahead, because it will be an ideal aircraft to meet the requirements particularly of the three airlines to which reference has been made.

Buccaneer Aircraft

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about his negotiations with the Hawker Siddeley Company on the problems of work-load which the cancellation of the eight Buccaneer aircraft has created.

Mr. Stonehouse: The Department has kept in close touch with the company about all aspects of the cancellation, but the question of distribution of work between the various factories of the group is the responsibility of the management.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that Humberside is an area of low wages and, consequently, engineering work of this kind is vitally important to uplift the levels of the workers and get workers of higher skills into the Humberside area? Therefore, would he accept the fact that we are pleased that we are no longer making Buccaneers. We want work, but we would sooner have men working on civil aircraft than Buccaneers.

Mr. Stonehouse: I admire the efficiency of the factory at Brough. The management there is first class and has achieved extremely good results. I hope that Hawker Siddeley will be able to transfer civil work to this particular factory.

Mr. Corfield: If there is a principle involved in selling Buccaneers to South Africa and this has been breached, is not this the answer to the hon. Gentleman's problem? Does it not make absolute nonsense of the Government's programme to increase exports to refuse this opportunity?

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not intend to be drawn


on that one. A decision has been made and announced.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is it not true, as the Minister has announced, that it will cost £2½ million to cancel these eight aircraft? Rather than saddle the British taxpayer with this expense, would it not be more common sense to follow the 16 Buccaneers which have already been sold to South Africa by the present Government, by selling these eight to her?

Mr. Storehouse: Bearing in mind the need for financial stringency and the cutting down of the defence programme, I am satisfied that the right decision has been made in this case.

Beagle Aircraft Company

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology what Government assistance is now being given to the Beagle Aircraft Company; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to seek legislative authority for taking over the Beagle Aircraft Company Limited.

Mr. Benn: As previously announced, the Government have agreed, subject to legislation, to purchase Beagle from its present owners, Pressed Steel Fisher Limited. A Bill to this end will shortly be introduced, and in the meantime we are meeting the company's day-to-day requirements for working capital.—[Vol. 738, c. 36–9.]

Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to remind the House how long ago that announcement was made? Can he say how much money has been advanced to Beagle, and under what head? Can he say precisely when he expects legislation to be brought in to regularise this unsatisfactory position?

Mr. Benn: Legislation will be brought in and passed in the Session to which the first original agreement referred, namely, in the current Session. The money paid to the company to keep it going, £2½4 million, will be part of the capital of the new company. I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Ridley: When will the Government return to legality in this matter? How dare the right hon. Gentleman take

taxpayers money and spend it without any legal authority. Will he apologise to the House and to the country for this misuse of public funds?

Mr. Benn: The pledge to acquire the Beagle company was subject to legislation, and until the legislation is passed I will have authority to pay the company, but support for Beagle is an example of the support given by the Government to the aircraft industry.

Mr. Corfield: Am I not right in thinking that the pledge was given 18 months ago? Is not this a most dilatory way in which to behave?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. When the pledge was given to the company about acquisition, it was made clear to it, and understood by it, that the legislation would be introduced and enacted in the present Session, and it will be.

Large Passenger Aircraft (Safety)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Technology what considerations he gave to the safety considerations involved before deciding to proceed with the development of very large passenger aircraft equipped with not more than two power-plants.

Mr. Stonehouse: We satisfied ourselves that they could meet the same safety standards as large aircraft equipped with more than two engines.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a fact, as has been perseveringly suggested by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), that the European airbus is at present designed with only two engines? Does the safety consideration to which the hon. Gentleman referred cover the situation which would arise in the event of the failure of one of those at or shortly after takeoff?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir, we are satisfied that a large aircraft with two engines will be as safe as one with three or more. If one engine fails, the aircraft will be able to fly on the other. The chance of two engines failing simultaneously is about one in 300 million hours, so I think that we can discount that.

Mr. Brooks: Would my hon. Friend confirm that the French and Germans are


unequivocally committed to the concept of a two-engined airbus and will not withdraw at the last moment?

Mr. Storehouse: Most European airlines are pleased with the concept of a two-engined airbus.

Mr. Corfield: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the American choice of three engines is due entirely to the peculiarities of their internal routes, particularly the difficulties of crossing the Rockies, and that there is no difference in safety hazard between the two types of aircraft?

Mr. Storehouse: That is correct. The Americans took a long time to reach this decision and for many months a two-engined American airbus was being planned, but they have now chosen a three-engined one because of the special requirements of their routes.

Variable Geometry Aircraft

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Minister of Technology what progress the British Aircraft Corporation design team have made on the variable geometry aircraft; and what consideration they are giving the swing wing principle for civil aircraft.

Mr. Monro: asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made with plans for an all-British swing-wing aircraft.

Mr. Stonehouse: The B.A.C. project study for a military V.G. aircraft has recently been extended to enable the design team to study variations in costs, complexity and timescale which might interest other countries with a similar requirement. We have no plans at present for developing a civil aircraft with a swing wing.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware how much the British aircraft industry and a wide range of ancillary industries are dependent upon firm orders for new planes on a ten-year programme, and that, without this industry, we would become entirely dependent on the United States?

Mr. Stonehouse: We are very anxious to build up a European collaborative programme for military aircraft such as we are; building up for civil aircraft.

Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman's Reply mean that the Germans were not interested in the B.A.C. design study in its original form and that it is having to be modified to suit them? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that, if humanly possible, the Germans are brought into collaboration with us on this project?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, we are doing all we can to interest the Germans and the Italians in coming in with us on a joint programme to develop an aircraft which will meet their requirements as well as ours.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Turton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now withdraw Great Britain's application to join the Common Market.

Sir Knox Cunningham: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the discussions at the Council of the European Economic Community, he will make a statement about Great Britain's application to join the Six.

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister (1) what reply he has received from the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community to Great Britain's application for entry into the Community;
(2) what further steps he now proposes to take in connection with Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.

Mr. Wall: asked the1 Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement on the recent communications he has had with the Governments and Prime Ministers of the Six.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As the House knows, the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community is at present meeting in Brussels. I understand that they are continuing their consideration of Britain's application, which of course we have no intention of withdrawing.
We have remained in close touch with the Six Governments and have left them in no doubt of our view that negotiations can and should begin soon.

Mr. Turton: When will the Prime Minister end this humiliation for Britain and face the realities of the situation? How, in our present economic difficulties, can we possibly afford an extra £600 million added to our balance of payments deficit? Will the right hon. Gentleman concentrate on putting the economy right and extending our trade with our traditional partners?

The Prime Minister: This is not a humiliation. We do not accept that because, so far, statements have been made by one of the Six, these represent the decision of the Six as a whole. So far as the economy is concerned, it is certainly the duty of any Government in this country, inside or outside the Common Market, to get it into the strongest possible position.

Sir Knox Cunningham: But if the Council decides to let the British application lie on the table, where the Prime Minister slammed it down, what is the next step for Britain, and what are the alternatives of which the Prime Minister has spoken?

The Prime Minister: That is a question which the hon. and learned Gentleman might well think of putting down if and when that hypothetical situation arises. As to alternatives, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I have answered him a number of times on that question.

Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing short of full membership is contemplated and that this principle applies not only to the question of associate membership but also to the suggestion for Britain's possible entry by stages and to the French idea for a so-called "arrangement" while Britain fulfils the necessary conditions?

The Prime Minister: None of these ideas has been fully spelled out. I gave the position of the Government on the question of association or any vague kind of arrangement in a speech which I made in another part of the Palace of Westminster, a copy of which I placed in the Library, a fortnight ago.

Mr. Wall: As the French veto is almost certain, would the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider what looks like the only possible alternative—a North Atlantic Free Trade Area?

The Prime Minister: I have answered questions about the North Atlantic Free Trade Area on a number of occasions. I have said that it is not immediately or for the foreseeable future an available alternative. I have also said what our position is on the application which we have made.

Mr. Roebuck: But in view of the fact that these negotiations are not proceeding with pace and momentum, would my right hon. Friend consider convening a meeting of the Commonwealth Trade Ministers to see what can be done to boost trade in the Commonwealth? If he accepts that proposition, would he suggest that some of them might do a little more trade with us and a little less with those countries which are supplying arms to South Africa and helping the Rhodesians?

The Prime Minister: On pace and momentum, there is at least a great deal of activity in Brussels. What we are concerned to see is what direction this leads, and how far there can be agreement. We have had repeated consultations with Commonwealth Trade Ministers to see what can be done to increase the mutual flow of trade among Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Heath: If the Six reach a conclusion today, even though it be an agreement to differ, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement before the House rises?

The Prime Minister: It would certainly be our intention to make a statement from this Box. There are a number of Questions down on Thursday. If a clear situation develops as a result of today's meeting, that would have to be dealt with in answer to those Questions.

Mr. Grimond: Is it the Prime Minister's intention still to maintain an office for Lord Chalfont in Brussels, when we already have three embassies in Belgium?

The Prime Minister: It was thought desirable to have a Minister in charge of negotiations, if negotiations are agreed to. We will, of course, review the situation in the light of today's decision.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we have had a very disappointing—one might say


utterly negative—response? Would he further agree that the time may be very soon approaching when we shall have to say, "Enough is enough"?

The Prime Minister: I hope that my hon. Friend will restrain his impatience and enthusiasm for an outcome to these matters. As I said, our application is to the whole of the Six and it is from the Six that we are expecting an answer.

Mr. Maxwell: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that even if France's point of view prevails temporarily, he will advise Her Majesty's Government to leave our application on the table? Will he further assure us that, unlike the former Administration, he will not permit Her Majesty's Government to indulge in petty anti-French actions?

The Prime Minister: I made it clear in my original Answer that we have no intention of withdrawing our application. We must, of course, wait to see the response of the Six as a whole to that application.

MINISTER OF INFORMATION

Mr. Ford: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of Information.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 8th December, 1966, to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Mr. Ford: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of his hon. Friends feel that a central authoritative source of information would greatly assist with Press relations and would enable the Government to, for example, mount a buy British campaign to back up devaluation?

The Prime Minister: I think that the existing arrangements whereby Government decisions are notified to this House —and by other appropriate and well tried channels—are perfectly adequate in this matter. I am aware that former Governments have had Ministers specially charged with this duty, but experience of that has shown that there are better ways of communicating decisions reached by the Cabinet.

Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to say which Member of the Cabinet is now the "Minister for Misinformation"?

PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION BROADCAST)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his television broadcast on 23rd November dealing with the economic situation.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 28th November, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That made very interesting reading. However, will the right hon. Gentleman clear up two small points about the non-appearance of Mr. Jay on this programme? Will he, first, confirm that his office approved the appearance of Mr. Jay on this programme on Wednesday? Will he, secondly, agree that he countermanded that approval after reading Mr. Jay's article on Thursday, in which he said that he, the Prime Minister, had destroyed papers relating to devaluation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has already been given the answers to that question, although they do not seem to have satisfied his curiosity.

Sir Knox Cunningham: What answers?

The Prime Minister: Answers given to the House of Commons. Even the hon. Gentleman can read.
The position was that we communicated our view that it should not be a matter for purely financial editors and that there should be someone who could raise wider questions, including industrial questions. That was not replied to, but an announcement was made by accident —and I have had an apology from the authorities concerned—that their original three names would stand. On Wednesday there were further discussions. Certainly this was too important a discussion to spend its time going into highly inaccurate and secret details in statements.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend's question. Will he make this quite clear: is it true that, on the 22nd, No. 10 gave a clearance to Mr. Jay and that, on the 23rd, this was rescinded?

The Prime Minister: There was no clearance from No. 10 as far as Mr. Jay was concerned. This was discussed on Thursday night—I am surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite want to pursue this sort of question. [Interruption.] Right hon. Gentlemen opposite not only said who would be interviewing or would appear with them but, in one case affecting me, they vetoed my going on the air. The position, as I have said, is that No. 10 indicated that it should be a more representative group of journalists— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and we had had no reply from them until they announced in the Press that they were appointing Mr. Jay. They expressed their regret for that afterwards.

INTERNATIONAL LOAN (CONDITIONS)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister why he turned down the offer of an international loan, with conditions, as an alternative to devaluation.

The Prime Minister: I made it clear that a substantial part of any international finance made available to safeguard the old parity would be on a short-term basis only. Any longer-term accommodation could have meant much more stringent terms than any British Government could accept.

Mr. Ridley: Why, then, did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer say on 20th November that offers of this loan were made but that there were no conditions attached to these? Will he also say what conditions could be attached to any loan which could have been more onerous than the conditions eventually accepted when the final loan was accepted?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary lies in his question—on the difference between very short-term accommodation, which is no solution and which would not have had conditions attached, and that part which, if the short-term loan was rejected and if it was all International Monetary Fund borrowing—far greater than our drawing rights—they would have had the right to ask for far more stringent conditions. The hon. Gentleman can use his own imagination to see what conditions might have been laid down in re-

gard to, for example, public expenditure programmes and taxation programmes laid down by this House, which no Government could or would have accepted.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend intend to consult with Mr. Schweitzer and the I.M.F. on the details of the current review of Government expenditure, and will Mr. Schweitzer's approval have to be sought before they are announced to this House?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of that question is, "No, Sir", and the answer to the second part is, "No, Sir".

ECONOMIC ADVISERS

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Prime Minister if he will now change his economic advisers, in view of Her Majesty's Government's new economic policy.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is not the taxpayer due for a refund from the failures of Dr. Ballogh and Dr. Kaldor?

The Prime Minister: I know that it will not be possible to curb the xenophobic views of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. Both of these gentlemen and all the other Government economic advisers, including the British ones, have rendered very valuable service for very many years. Like the former Administration, it is the Government who take the responsibility for decisions, and not their advisers.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Is not one of the Prime Minister's troubles his disregard of the economic advice which is given to him and which he has destroyed, so that devaluation has been totally unplanned and has led to the trouble we are in today?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in believing an article which appeared in The Times and which was quite false, although it excited the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister said in his last election manifesto that the pursuit of solvency and the defence of the £ were his over-riding aims. Does that still remain the case?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and three or four weeks ago we debated the events which occurred on 18th November. As I said yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman might now help by using such influence as he has with British industry—[Interruption.]—first, to seize on the opportunities available to us on devaluation, and, secondly, to refrain from provocative and unnecessary price increases—instead of giving many people in. the City and in industry the lead, which he does give, of always knocking Britain.

LICENSING OF ROAD VEHICLES (SCOTLAND)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the system of licensing of road vehicles in Scotland from the Minister of Transport to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The system of carrier licensing, to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring, is an integral element of the Government's transport policy which takes account of the needs of particular areas, but must be considered for Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Campbell: As the Secretary of State for Scotland is already responsible for roads and road safety, why not transfer the licensing system for road haulage vehicles to him and, at the same time, exempt that system in Scotland from the proposals in the Transport Bill, which will be very damaging to Scotland's development if they are applied there?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will, of course, have opportunities of debating these issues when the Bill is before the House in its subsequent stages. I was not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman was referring to carrier licences. This question—particularly in relation to quantity licensing—refers to distances over 100 miles, and a large part of this traffic and goods originate across the Border. It was, therefore, thought appropriate to have a system for Great Britain as a whole.

DISASTER FUNDS (ADMINISTRATION)

Ql1. Mr. Cordle: asked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to the setting up of an advisory national co-ordinating committee to help those administering disaster funds.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Charity Commissioners are always ready, and indeed anxious, to advise on the wording of charitable appeals and trust deeds and have power under the Charities Act, 1960, to extend the declared objects of a charitable fund to enable any residue to be utilised. These arrangements meet the main difficulties which can arise and steps have been taken to ensure that the assistance which the Charity Commissioners can offer is made known to those establishing new appeals. In the circumstances, I do not think that a new Committee, as proposed by the hon. Gentleman, would have a useful function to perform.

Mr. Cordle: Would not the Prime Minister agree that a special committee should be set up to obviate difficulties such as those experienced by the Aberfan disaster fund, and similar funds?

The Prime Minister: I think that everyone is aware of the difficulties which arise, but in the case of Aberfan, for example, the Charity Commissioner." were closely involved in the setting up of the fund, and have been in close touch with the fund ever since its foundation. I do not think that any committee could have done more.

Mr. Thorpe: Would the Prime Minister give further consideration to the idea of a central fund, so that money is immediately available when a disaster occurs and there is no question of any unused funds being left which, for trust purposes, can never be used?

The Prime Minister: This matter has been considered many times, as has the proposal of the hon. Member for Bourne-mouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle) for a national co-ordinating committee, but I think that the general view would be that a vague general fund with no specific objects would be much less likely to attract contributions from people


who are deeply distressed by an individual accident or disaster, and who would want to contribute specifically for that disaster.

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make about Questions on the Order Paper.
My attention has been drawn to the effect of the proposed shortening of the Christmas Adjournment on the operation of the 21-day rule for notice of Questions. Under the original proposal, to adjourn till 22nd January, notice could be given yesterday and today for Oral Questions up till 8th February. Under the proposal before the House today, if it is carried, to adjourn till 17th January, notice can only be given today until 1st February. But the Clerks at the Table, acting under the original proposal, have already accepted notices up till 8th February. Standing Order 8(6) does not prescribe what should be done, and I must, therefore, subject to the views of the House, rule on the matter.
The 21-day rule derives from the Second Report, to which the House agreed, of the Procedure Committee of Session 1964–65. In an appendix to that Report the Committee suggested that in the event of the House disagreeing to the proposed dates for an Adjournment, the notices given on the assumption of the agreement of the House to such dates should be withdrawn, or the dates altered.
The present position, though not exactly that envisaged, is analogous to it. However, I propose to allow Questions still to be receivable for any day up to and including 8th February. Really, by Thursday, only two days are involved in the irregularity, and the inconvenience which would be caused to Members, Departments and printers by insisting on

the out-of-time Questions being withdrawn would seem to me to outweigh any possible advantages.
I think that I should, however, say that I would not hesitate to rule in the opposite sense if the circumstances were different, and if there were a larger number of days at stake.

BILLS PRESENTED

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Bill to amend the law relating to town and country planning, the compulsory acquisition of land and the disposal of land by public authorities; to make provision for grants for research relating to, and education with respect to, the planning and design of the physical environment; to extend the purposes for which Exchequer contributions may be made under the Town Development Act, 1952; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Anthony Greenwood; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Richard Crossman, Mr. Anthony Crosland, Mrs. Barbara Castle, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Robert Mellish, Mr. Niall MacDermot, the Attorney-General, Mr. Arthur Skeff-ington, and Mr. James MacColl; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

GAMING

Bill to make further provision with respect to gaming; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. James Callaghan; supported by Mr. William Ross, Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, the Attorney-General, Mr. Harold Lever, and Mr. Dick Taverne; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

PROTECTION OF MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES

Dame Irene Ward: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence to remove without authority any work of art from a publicly-owned collection; and for purposes connected therewith.
The Bill which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was the will of the House that Ten Minutes Rule Bills should be taken at this time. Hon Members must listen to the hon. Lady.

Dame Irene Ward: The Bill would make it an offence to remove from an art gallery without authority any work of art, and its object would be carried out by two small amendments to the Malicious Damages Act of 1861. The Bill is simple, it is practical, and it is wanted. I am very glad to be able to say that it has the support of both the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery. In the form in which I present it, it also has the support of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. It is a very well-supported Bill.
It may seem a little odd that I should be introducing this Bill at this time, but hon. Members might cast their minds back to an occasion a year or two ago when a thief removed from the National Gallery the Goya portrait of the Duke of Wellington, and held it for some years in the hope of payment of a ransom. When the portrait was finally returned, minus its frame, it was discovered that the only prosecution that lay against the theft was for the removal of the frame. Had the thief left the portrait in the frame, no proceedings could have been taken against him.
That incident disclosed a big loophole in the law appertaining to our galleries

and museums, so, for some time, methods of dealing with the loophole have been under consideration. As I say, the Bill in its present form has the support of all those who are interested in protecting our public galleries and museums from thieves of the kind who removed the Goya portrait from the National Gallery.
It has been brought to my notice that those who want the Bill consider it to be a matter of urgency. What has happened in the past, and all the publicity that was given to the theft of the Goya portrait and what subsequently happened after that theft was discovered, has put the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and other galleries and museums into a very exposed position and those who are knowledgeable in the matter are very anxious that the loophole that was revealed should be closed as soon as possible.
I feel that I am asking the House to accept a Bill that will be of general benefit to those who are interested in our museums and galleries. I therefore ask the House to allow me to have the First Reading of this small but very important Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Channon, Mr. Blenkin-sop, Miss Harvie Anderson, Mrs. Lena Jeger, and Mr. Parker.

PROTECTION OF MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES

Bill to make it an offence to remove without authority any work of art from a publicly-owned collection; and for purposes connected therewith, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 16th February, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

SOUTH AFRICA (BRITISH MILITARY EQUIPMENT)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I should like to begin, Mr. Speaker, by expressing my appreciation to you for your decision to allow this Motion to be debated this afternoon. All hon. Members must be sensible of the great weight of responsibility which falls upon your shoulders when Motions under Standing Order No. 9 come before you. If I may respectfully say so, your decisions since the new form of the Standing Order was introduced have given badly needed encouragement to back benchers on both sides of the House.
I should like, also, to apologise to the House, not for this debate which I consider necessary, but for the inconvenience which may have been caused to those involved at a difficult period in the Parliamentary year and to all hon. and right hon. Members for the fact that we are to lose several valuable days of the Recess.
During the last week the newspapers have been full of little else but stories and speculations about the South African arms deal. We have had reports and rumours of Cabinet leaks and counter-leaks and of dark doings in the Government Whips' Office. We have had a story of an admirable speech by the Home Secretary to the more youthful hon. Members opposite in which, it was alleged, he voiced some very interesting opinions, not least on the Industrial Expansion Bill; and I certainly hope that in due course he will have the luck to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, when we come to debate the Bill.
We have had a massive Motion, signed by no fewer than 136 hon. Members opposite and alleged to have been inspired by the Prime Minister. We have had the Foreign Secretary descending from the fogs of Brussels to what I might term the fogs of the Cabinet office. We have had violent disagreements reported in the Cabinet and more alleged leaks, but since yesterday, of course, we now know that none of this happened at all, or very little of it. The Prime Minister said so in his statement, but perhaps he

will accept that some of us may be forgiven for remaining a little suspicious.
The point I am making is that all this had to do with the South African arms deal. Then, on Thursday last, we had the Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons. Incidentally, I am surprised that the Prime Minister is not present this afternoon [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]. The right hon. Gentleman said to the House last Thursday —and the statement came under the heading "South African (Arms Supplies)"—
 I will undertake that the House will be given a fuller statement next week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1967, Vol, 756, c. 628.]
Not surprisingly I, for one, in my innocence, came to the House yesterday expecting that there would be a statement about South Africa, but not at all. Instead of that we got a long, rambling economics statement. In the first paragraph alone there were allusions to industry, trade, agriculture, prices and incomes, almost the whole field was covered, and, finally, he promised a "searching review"—not the first we have had during the last few years—of Government expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred to this as a "blancmange". I suspect that there may be some tin-tacks in the blancmange which may well stick in the throats of those hon. Members opposite who cheered him so vociferously yesterday.
The statement about the arms deal itself was only a paragraph long and was concealed in all this verbiage in the following interesting passage:
 The review as a whole is being related to what is essential in expenditure here at home, and to what is appropriate at a time when we have been, and are, reassessing Britain's role in the world. This must involve overseas policy.
In this connection, the Government have completed their examination of the question of the supply of defence equipment to South Africa.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 923.]
In other words, we shall have to save money abroad and we shall start by passing up a £200 million export order. That is the effect of what the Prime Minister said.
But perhaps the statement was not so much concealing as revealing. Probably


what happened during the course of the Cabinet meetings over the last week or so was that the Cabinet was engaged in an examination of the cuts and measures necessary to achieve that "massive swing" in the balance of payments to which the Prime Minister alluded. This examination surely must have involved cuts in the housing programme, the question of maintaining the school-leaving age at 15. In The Times this morning I saw—

Mr. Roy Roebuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) raised a point of order about the nature of this debate, you gave a Ruling. It would appear that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) is going outside the terms of your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would appear so to me, also. I was hoping that the hon. Member would come to his Motion.

Mr. Hastings: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the matters which have been discussed in these last few days are matters of great interest, in the context of this debate, to all on this side of the House. I suggest that probably there cropped up the question of the school-
leaving age and also the reimposition of Health Service charges—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hastings: Then certain right hon. Members opposite intervened to their credit; the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary, perhaps the Minister of Labour—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—and perhaps the Minister of Defence—I do not see any of them present now—may have intervened and said that these cuts and measures might not have to be so drastic if the balance of payments could be improved by a £200 million sale of equipment to South Africa. Was not that perhaps what happened? But the voice of Labour's moral conscience dictated otherwise.
Now I want briefly to examine this moral issue. South Africa is seen by hon. Members opposite—I am sure quite sincerely—as a tyranny. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In several respects I be-

lieve that they are right. It cannot be denied that they are right—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why comment on it?"]—but so are a host of other Governments strung across the world from the Berlin Wall to the Hong Kong frontier, many of which are treated so obsequiously by the same hon. Members opposite who are quick to condemn South Africa. There is no complaint about trade with those countries.
Without making any excuses for South Africa, any reasonable observer will grant, I think, that she is faced with a gigantic human and social problem in a form never experienced in the world before while the only problem facing the Communist tyranny is how to hold all men permanently in thrall, a problem as old as tyranny itself. The second difference is that South Africa, for all her faults, real and imagined, is our ally. In two world wars she has left her dead where we did and still, in spite of all that has happened since, she is our ally today, whereas the Communist Powers are sworn through historical conviction, by one means or another, however long it may take, to the destruction of everything for which this House of Commons stands. But, that apart, there are glaring inconsistencies in this moral stand.

Mr. James Johnson: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Hastings: I could understand hon. Members opposite better, and right hon. Members of the Government, if they so abhorred the South African Government that they were anxious to withdraw all trade, all aid and comfort, from South Africa regardless of the consequences. If they did so I might wish to emigrate, but I should be forced to admit a crazy logic in that, but it is we who get the aid and comfort to the tune of £55 million surplus on the balance of our trade with South Africa last year alone. What the Government are saying to South Africa is this, "We wish to deny you the right to defend yourselves from external attack or revolution, but apart from that we want to sell you everything we can and we will take your goods in return."
There may be some hon. Members opposite—I hope that we shall hear from


them this afternoon—who wish to withdraw trade in the way I have suggested and who would go as far as the institution of a blockade, even to making war on South Africa. If so, I say to them that that would be the end of our position as a trading nation. I would be interested to know how their war and blockade is to be paid for. We would like to hear from them if that is their view. The moral attitude of this Government and of hon. Members on the Left wing of the Labour Party is both inconsistent and highly selective.
I turn to the balance of payments argument, which in our present predicament is, I suggest, probably the most important aspect of this sorry affair. I want to begin by quoting some facts about the South African trade. The value of United Kingdom investments in South Africa today is authoritatively estimated to be £1,000 million and the annual return on these investments is in the region of £60 million. The value of our exports to South Africa has risen from £162 million in 1960 to £243 million in 1966, and then the South Africans were doing their best to hold an inflation. In 1967, to the end of October alone, the value of our exports was £218 million. It is interesting to note also that next year 13 selling missions from United Kingdom chambers of commerce and trade associations were due to visit South Africa.
The argument about this major arms deal is not new. It has been going on now, as many hon. Members on this side at least know, for a year. For a year manufacturers, exporters, the C.B.I., have urged this Government to see reason, but without effect. The famous shopping list for equipment, which is now known at least in broad terms, certainly includes Buccaneer aircraft, Westland helicopters, frigates, anti-aircraft missiles, and originally there were submarines worth £34 million, though we have lost them already. It amounts to between £150 million and £250 million, not to mention the spares and the follow-up which would have gone with it in later years. Until yesterday we had a virtual monopoly of the market' for defence equipment in South Africa.
Now that we have lost it, do not let any hon. Member be under the illusion that we shall get it back. It will be extremely difficult indeed to fight our

way back into that market, as, indeed, into others as well.
It is not only defence equipment. By their action, this Government have created such bad blood that we are now in danger of losing many other orders, particularly for capital goods, and certainly orders for major items from the South African Government for public utilities, and so forth.
Here, I want to quote a telegram despatched under yesterday's date. It was sent to the Minister for Technology and a copy to the President of the Board of Trade. It reads as follows:
 Have today sent telegrams to Sheffield and Glasgow Members of Parliament as follows. After long and expensive engineering and marketing activity Davy-United Sheffield were on the verge of being awarded a £6½ million sterling contract for rolling mill equipment and services for the South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation. In fact, the Managing Director was flying out today "—
that is, yesterday—
 to settle details. However, we have just received a message postponing this and indicating that the whole project is to be thrown open again to foreign competition. Every indication this action is due to anger by this important Government-controlled South African customer over arms issue. The contract is urgently necessary to maintain employment at our works in Sheffield and Glasgow and failure to obtain it may force us to close one of them. Trust you will do your utmost to ensure that common sense prevails in Westminster on this arms embargo issue which is doing so much damage to trading relations with Britain's second largest customer.
Maurice Fiennes,
Chairman Davy-Ashmore Ltd.
What have hon. Members opposite who represent Sheffield and Glasgow constituencies to say about that?

Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court): rose—

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) must decide to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Richard: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman who has the Floor has decided.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hastings: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are wasting time. The hon. Gentleman who has the Floor must decide if he is giving way and to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Hastings: I have tried to make it clear that I am not giving way at this juncture. I have just read a message addressed to every hon. Member who represents a Sheffield or a Glasgow constituency.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hastings: I will give way if any hon. Member who seeks to intervene is a Member for Sheffield or for Glasgow.

Mr. Mendelson: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has given way to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson).

Mr. Mendelson: My constituency lies in Sheffield. I have received a copy of the same telegram. I rise to ask whether the hon. Gentleman has read the whole text of the telegram, because the copy that I have received has a sentence which the hon. Gentleman has left out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and which says:
 But if this is a matter of conscience to you then no more will be said about it.
Why did not the hon. Gentleman read that sentence?

Mr. Hastings: I have read to the House the full text of the telegram which came into my hands. I find it an extraordinary thing that the hon. Gentleman should apparently treat so lightly a threat to close down one of these major works. What I am asking the hon. Gentleman, and indeed any hon. Gentleman, is what they propose to do about it. Of course, they can go to the factory gates and read homilies on the moral justification and the moral duties of the Labour Party. I am not sure how well that will go down. They can explain how it is a moral duty for these people to lose their jobs. They can explain, perhaps, how it is a moral duty to jeopardise the raising of the school-leaving age in order to deny arms to South Africa. [Interruption.] I cannot help it if hon. Gentlemen do not like this. This is the unpalatable truth.

Perhaps they would care to explain to their constituents who are threatened in this way how useful submarines are for crowd control in South Africa.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am a Sheffield Member of Parliament. I was in South Africa less than a month ago and I saw the work which this company was doing. There were Sheffield citizens working out there and obtaining valuable export orders for Sheffield and this company. This is one example of how a political decision can undermine industrial effort and effort by a company which has won the Queen's Award.

Mr. Hastings: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that is a very fair point. Whether they realise it or not, hon. Members opposite who represent Sheffield and Glasgow constituencies will be laughing on the other side of their faces before long, I suspect. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are engaged in a grave and serious debate. I hope that both sides of the House will remember that.

Mr. Hastings: I have suggested to hon. Members opposite that one of the absurdities of this situation is that the equipment about which the argument has arisen could not possibly be used for the purposes to which the Government and hon. Members opposite are objecting. I suggest that when they come to have to explain this decision to the firms and to the people concerned they might like to explain how it can. How useful is an ack-ack missile, for instance, for chasing terrorists in the veldt.
After devaluation only a short time ago, we had the Prime Minister's famous broadcast to the nation, and at the end of his lecture, he said this:
 We must take with both hands the opportunity that has now been presented to us. Our exporters, our industrial managers, our salesmen—what a chance they have got now. Our workers in every industry, our scientists and engineers "—
and so on and so forth. Well, I wonder whether he should perhaps have made it clear that this did not necessarily apply to Hawker Siddeley, to Vickers, to West-land, to Davy-Ashmore, or to the shipyards of Clydebank?
There are 180 industrialists who form the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association—and the Prime Minister must know this well—who have been slaving away now for months to protect and build up the British-South African trade and who would have achieved the position of second trading partner this year, without yesterday's decision. Perhaps he should have explained in his homily that it did not necessarily apply to them, either.
Business and trade, as everybody knows, is a matter of confidence. Three weeks ago the world was shocked by the British devaluation, brought about by a steady ebbing of foreign confidence in the capability of this Government. Then, on the very morrow, the world was assured we would increase exports to a massive extent. Only a few days later the Prime Minister passes up a £200 million export order, with incalculable trading results.
What effect does the right hon. Gentleman think this will have? Has he a magic opportunity up his sleeve to replace it with? Does he rate the conscience of the Labour Party in the balance of payments, for instance? I am sure that hon. Gentlemen on the Left wing do not live in the real world at all. They live in a muddled, Marxist haze all of their own, and the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have surrendered to them. I suggest that the Prime Minister is no longer in charge of his Cabinet and that the Cabinet is no longer governing. Hon. Gentlemen of the Left wing of the Labour Party are in charge.
This act of blind and cowardly folly is the last staw. The Government are not fit to rule, and I pray that it will not be long before this tawdry interval in our proud history is over—never to return.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I would advise the House that so far there are 35 hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We are here discussing a matter of major moral importance, and this emergency debate has opened in a manner which is more calculated to suit a petty party political wrangle. What we are discussing is whether we should by selling arms do

something which we on this side of the House regard as being utterly immoral in the sense that they would be used to support a Government whom we abhor and to support a policy which we find retrograde in the modern world.
What is said against us in this situation is that this will cost us money; and more, may cost some of us votes in the constituencies where these arms are made and orders of this kind can win jobs.
If this is really the question which is being put to me as a supporter of the decision which was announced by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday, if that is put to me—as a Right-wing supporter of the Government, may I, not in any sense a Left-wing, Marxist, muddle-headed member of this party—answer the hon. Gentleman when he puts this question by saying that, to me, it would be grossly immoral and failing in my duty to my constituents if I did something which is against my moral conscience simply because that will cost me votes in a constituency, or because it will cost us as a country something on our balance of payments.
During the last century, the cotton workers in Lancashire decided they would do without jobs so as to assist those who were fighting for the freedom of the slaves in the United States. We now regard that in our history books as something of which this country can be proud. What we are asked to do is to deny that moral instinct which is at the very root of the British people so that hon. Gentlemen across there may count thirty pieces of silver as some contribution to the balance of payments.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lyon: No. I am not giving way.
There seem to be three arguments which are being used against the decision which was announced by the Government yesterday. The first is this. Does this moral gesture have any meaning if, in fact, the French are to supply these arms tomorrow, and if, in any case, South Africa will be supplied with the arms, and the only result will be that this country will have lost this valuable arms contract?

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. May I ask your


Ruling, Mr. Speaker? Is it in order for an hon. Member to address the hon. Member for Chigwell as "Judas"?

Mr. Speaker: I have always depreciated the passing up to the Chair of words the Chair does not hear, but it is not in order for an hon. Member to call another Member a Judas.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Albert Murray: My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) spoke of 30 pieces of silver, and on that I think that three hon. Members shot up. I must confess that this seemed like a reflex action. Mine was a reflex action, and in that case I withdraw, if the hon. Member wishes.

Mr. Lyon: I was saying that there appear to be three arguments which are being used against the decision. The first is that if we do not supply these arms the French will. It can be no justification of the stand which is being taken by the benches opposite—and we stand against what we conceive to be immoral and wrong—that we should do this action simply because someone else will do it in our stead. If that were true, we ought to say that we should supply heroin or cocaine or any of the other dangerous drugs simply because we know there is merchandising in those drugs, and they are provided in different parts of the world. It might equally be said that we ought to provide arms to certain sensitive areas of the world where we do not supply arms because we know that there are some countries, some named by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) just a
moment ago, which supply arms to those sensitive areas for reasons of their own. We do not do so—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Lyon: No.
Some of these decisions are made because we genuinely believe it is right that arms should not be supplied to those sensitive areas. It cannot, therefore, be any criticism of that policy if other countries are prepared to do so.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Lyon: If France is prepared to go against the decision of the Security Council on this matter, then I conceive that France is the one which ought to be condemned, and not this country because we stand by this hope for international peace and international solidarity. It is because the nations of the world have refused to back the United Nations in its attempt to found proper international relations that the United Nations has been such a weak instrument. If we are to be criticised because others have ratted on the United Nations resolution and we stand by it, there will never be any hope for international peace.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is a serious debate. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that it is taking 30 pieces of silver to do this deal with South Africa. Then why do we trade with South Africa at all?

Mr. Lyon: I said that if we did what we conceive to be immoral, it would be. We should be receiving 30 pieces of silver if we did it just for financial advantage. I conceive it to be immoral to supply arms to a Government who will use them either to repress internal subversion from those who are fighting for their freedom, or to defend themselves—against whom? I will try to answer that at the end of my speech, because it is there that the logic of my argument comes. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman can restrain himself for a while, I will try to answer him then.
The second argument used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that we need the money and that we ought to sell abroad whatever we can. We make the nuclear weapon, but no one argues that we should sell that to Egypt or Israel simply because, thereby, we should improve our balance of payments position. Everyone in the House and in the country conceives that that is wrong and, therefore, immoral. Within our research establishments, we make germs for germ warfare just in case they are ever desirable as a counter-device or deterrent to any Government threatening us with germ warfare. No one suggests that we should sell that produce abroad simply to improve our balance of payments position, for the very reason that we all conceive that it would be immoral and wrong.
The only reason it has been suggested that we should sell arms to South Africa is because there are some hon. Members, notably on the benches opposite, who do not believe that it is wrong to sell arms to a Government who will use them to put down the black inhabitants of their country. That is really why there is an argument between us, because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe that that would be immoral.
The third argument used against the Government's decision is that, although we should not sell arms for internal repression, these are not arms for internal repression, but are simply for external defence. It is necessary to analyse that argument to see how weak it is.
Against whom is it suggested that the South African Government will be defending themselves? Is it suggested that they require these weapons to defend themselves against China, or Russia? If it is, it ill accords with all the arguments in the House about the logistic reasons why we cannot mount a campaign against Rhodesia. We are told that the nearest base is 2,000 miles away and, therefore, that it would be inconceivable to mount a military operation in those circumstances. Any base for Russia or China is even further away from South Africa. In those circumstances, who really believes that any threat could come from outside Africa itself?
The real reason why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and the South African Government want us to supply these arms is simply to defend the South Africans against a possible attack from Africa itself. If that is so, we must analyse the motives for suggesting that we should supply the arms.
About three years ago, I remember that there was a similar argument in the country about an arms deal. At that time, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was leader of the Opposition and was attacked vigorously by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for suggesting that we should not supply frigates to Spain. A Motion was tabled and signed by a great many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. I wonder how they felt when a Spanish ship fired on an English ship near Gibraltar only a few weeks ago. I wonder how they would

feel if the worse came to the worst and the debate going on about the future of Gibraltar were to deteriorate into an open conflict between this country defending Gibraltar's right to maintain its liberty and Spain itself. How, then, could we justify that we had once sold ships to Spain? How could we justify that we had provided the means whereby those who fighting for our cause were being attacked with weapons which we had supplied earlier?
In a situation which might arise in Southern Africa, where these weapons could be used for the defence of South Africa against those who are fighting for the freedom of the African majority in that country, can it be said that we would not be drawn into such a conflict, with all our responsibilities in Southern Africa and with our responsibilities towards the United Nations for the maintenance of peace? Can it not be said that, in such a situation, we might find ourselves using weapons against the weapons which we have supplied to South Africa?
If that be so, the whole argument about whether these are used for external defence or for internal repression loses validity. Even if it had validity, surely it must be accepted that Buccaneers, in particular, could also be used for internal repression?

Mr. Mark Woodnutt: On this sort of hypothesis, is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we should not supply arms, anything that could be used for the manufacture of arms, or anything that could be used to sustain troops, even food, in case it should be used against us?

Mr. Lyon: This kind of suggestion poses a hypothetical moral problem, of course. I accept that. But, in any kind of situation in the real world, in which I assure the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire we really do live, there are moral dilemmas about any course which is adopted.
The provision of arms clearly is immoral. Whether the provision of food is immoral is highly debatable, and it may be that we shall be involved in a moral dilemma there. But we can be sure that the provision of weapons is immoral and wrong, and it is immoral and wrong even if if they are to be used allegedly for external defence. In the final analysis, some of them, certainly the


Buccaneers, can be used for internal repression and for the support ofapartheid against the inhabitants of South Africa.
It has been the object and policy of the South African Government over recent years to divide up the African population in easily manageable Bantu areas which can be policed quite easily by the South African armed forces. One of the ways in which they can do that is by the use of the Buccaneer fighters. It is in this kind of situation that Buccaneers have a rôle to play.

Mr. R. T. Paget: rose—

Mr. Lyon: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Coward.

Mr. Lyon: It is also not hypothetical and certainly not inconceivable that these Weapons—

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who was very sensitive about being called a Judas, shouted "Coward" across the Floor because my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) would not give way. I understand that you do not welcome these matters being taken up with the Chair. If it had come from any other hon. Member, I would have ignored it, but, seeing that the hon. Gentleman is so supersensitive, he should withdraw his remark.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I again deprecate putting to the Chair words which are flung across the Floor. But, again, the word "coward" is out of order, and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I willingly withdraw the word, Mr. Speaker. Although the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray), who applied the other epithet to me, a much more serious epithet, withdrew that word in a most ambiguous way, I unreservedly withdraw the word which I used.

Mr. Lyon: May I close with this argument? It has been suggested that it is inconceivable that the weapons would be used for the repression of those who were fighting for their freedom in Southern Africa. It is only a few weeks since the South Africans invaded

Rhodesia in order to repress the freedom fighters who had come in from Zambia, and. at the same time, the South African Prime Minister threatened that, if Zambia gave any assistance to those who were fighting for their freedom in Rhodesia, the South African Government would attack Zambia with aircraft and with bombs.
Can it be said that Buccaneers would have no part to play in such a situation? Can it be said that these weapons, allegedly for external defence, would never be used for external offence?

Mr. Paget: rose—

Mr. Lyon: I have given way on several occasions, and, for various reasons, have been delayed in what I have had to say. I have already gone on too long.
It seems to me. as a member of the Labour Party and a Member on this side of the House, absolutely plain that there is here a matter which comes before us rarely, a question on which the issue is clearly written in black and white. When there is an issue of black and white, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire is always with the white in skin and with the grey in principle. For me, in this situation, I am on the side of those who have decided that it would be immoral and wrong for us to provide arms to South Africa which could have the effect of upholding the atrocious system ofapartheid which everyone in this country ought rightly to deplore.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I do not believe that anyone would quarrel with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) in his enunciation of the principle that no hon. Member can be called upon to vote for a policy which he regards as morally wrong. But it follows equally—I hope that he will agree with me here—that where what is involved is a matter of serious economic importance to this country, those who take the view that the moral issue demands a sacrifice must be absolutely certain that they are right. It is not enough to convince oneself that a moral issue is involved unless one has thoroughly thought out why the particular policy raises a moral issue.
On that matter, I pass straight to the question which my right hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) put to the hon. Gentleman and to which the hon. Gentleman promised to reply in the course of his speech, but which he conspicuously failed to answer. My right hon. and learned Friend asked why we should trade with South Africa at all if the moral issue is that South Africa is so morally perverted that it is wrong to supply her with arms. The hon. Gentleman promised an answer, but he did not give it. If he wishes to give it now, I shall give way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I thought that I had dealt with that question after it came again in another interjection. I referred to the question of supplying food —for this purpose, we are talking about trade generally, of course—and I said that the issue in regard to food may not be so clear but the issue in regard to arms is absolutely clear. It was on that basis that I expressed myself as being wholly against providing arms.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That answer is not conspicuous for its clarity, coming from an hon. Member who is, I believe, a learned gentleman. But is he saying that there is at least a doubt as to the morality of any trade with South Africa? If that is the suggestion, although what the hon. Gentleman proposes would, as the Government Front Bench know very well, be economically disastrous for Britain, it is at least—I give him credit for it—a good deal more logical a position than the one which the Government have adopted.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I hope that this will not become just an altercation between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but may I make my position perfectly clear? In the situation which faces us and the policy which we ought to adopt towards South Africa, inevitably there are some issues, considered from a moral standpoint, on which there is something to be said on both sides of the argument.
On the issue of arms, in my submission, there is nothing to be said in favour of the argument which is being advanced by the Opposition. It may be true that there is a doubt about the whole issue of trade with South Africa, but there is certainly no doubt about the issue—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a second speech by intervention.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman could have answered the question with the monosyllable, "Yes". He has said that there is a doubt as to the morality of all trade with South Africa. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary, who will speak from the Government Front Bench, will repudiate that, because it will not be exactly an encouragement to those who respond to Government exhortations to go out and export to this, one of the best markets in the world, if it is thought that the party in power in Britain regards what they are doing as arguably immoral. However, it is at least an argument—I give the hon. Gentleman credit for it—which is more logical than the Government's attitude.
For if the argument is thatapartheid is a wrong and foolish policy—as I believe it to be—it does not follow that there should be any restriction on the export of arms required for the defence of South Africa against external aggression. I concede that, in the case of weapons of war specifically designed for dealing with internal disturbances—teargas, pistols, tommy-guns, and so on—there is a good case for those who take the view that there should be restriction. The House will recall that that is what the previous Government did in practice.
Weapons for dealing with external aggression, however—submarines,frigates, Buccaneer aircraft or anti-aircraft missiles—are completely irrelevant to the purpose of internal repression, but the issue here is relevant nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman hinted, to the question whether we desire South Africa to be in a position to defend herself against external aggression. Is it the view of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, and, apparently, of the Government, that they would like to see South Africa weakened from that point of view? [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I hear one hon. Gentleman below the Gangway agree. What do Ministers who are applying the policy think will be its effect? Perhaps the First Secretary of State will tell us.
The Government are pursuing a policy —I think that I carry hon. Members


below the Gangway with me in this— which would have the effect, if successful, of diminishing South Africa's power to defend herself against aggression. Is that the wish and intention of the Government, as plainly it is the wish and intention of the hon. Member for York? We are entitled to an answer to that.
It is essential for us to be clear that there is an overwhelming distinction between those weapons—and I include the Buccaneer aircraft. If the hon. Gentleman who dealt with that point reflects for a moment he will realise that very fast aircraft are wholly unsuitable for internal repression. To deal with a crowd, one needs a very slow aircraft. Fast and expensive aircraft are hideously inappropriate for that purpose. My complaint relates not to the limited number of weapons that are material to internal repression—the late Government had no quarrel on that—but to the weapons for external defence with which the present order is concerned.
It is at least to the Government's credit that the decision was not apparently arrived at without a good deal of pain and agony. It is plain, whatever the Prime Minister says, that some of the more responsible elements in his Cabinet were against imposing this restriction. It is the universal rule of Cabinet government that a Prime Minister announces that the Cabinet is unanimous only in circumstances in which it is widely known that it is split right through to the bottom.
What is more serious is the impression which the decision will make outside. In the world outside, which, let us never forget, is anxiously watching us since devaluation, people will be quite clear that the Left is in charge, that the Left has won, and that in this respect, as in many others, the Left wing of the Labour Party will see that this country's economy is sacrificed to its prejudices. That will not have a very wholesome effect on the £, nor will it be a good thing at home when people are asked to accept the serious restrictions, cuts and taxes to which the Prime Minister has referred.
People will know that they are worse than they need be because of this rejection of possible exports, and they will resent the cuts and restrictions a great deal more than they would otherwise have done. In this country, people will accept restric-

tions when they know that they are necessary, as they did during the war, but they resent them and try to get out of them when, as under the Attlee Government, they know that the restrictions are unnecessary and the result of incompetence. The Prime Minister is creating the same atmosphere this time. The decision was very bad.
None the less, I must deal with the moral and the practical case. If the decision were to be effective, if South Africa were to be deprived of arms by it, there would need to be very serious reflection on the matter. But everybody knows that South Africa will not be deprived of a single weapon as a result of the decision. She will get weapons elsewhere. Therefore, all that we are doing is to deprive ourselves at immense expense—because, whatever else it is, this is not a cheap gesture—of a very valuable market for no practical result.
Let us not underrate the value of this market. Arms sales have two great economic merits. One is that they tend to go on. Once one has sold one's aircraft or ships one gets repeat orders and sells spares. They are also economically very good orders because they involve technical skill and "know-how", which we possess, and relatively little by way of imported raw materials, and are, therefore, extremely good for the balance of payments. It is a very valuable type of trade and this is why the Government, which is so moral, are trying to stimulate arms sales elsewhere and why they have appointed an arms salesman.
The Government that regards South Africa as so immoral that she should be denied arms was priding itself only a short time ago on the sale of Lightnings to Saudi Arabia, not a conspicuously democratic community. The same Government are supplying officers and other ranks of the British Army to support the Sultan of Oman and Muscat, a gentleman who maintains a tyranny of a completely medieval style. They are all right, but apparently South Africa is so wrong that she must be denied these arms. That is selectivity carried to a lunatic point.
Have the Government reflected upon the effect of the decision on South Africa? It is a very wounding insult to a proud people. Are the Government assuming that ordinary trade will go on just as it did? Have not they taken seriously the


telegram which my hon. Friend read to the House? Do not the Government take very seriously the fact that they have not exactly created a good selling atmosphere for British goods? What about the gold supply, vital to the sterling area? Is that assured? What about the Simonstown base, never more important than now when the Suez Canal appears to be permanently blocked?
If the Government considered these things, are they satisfied that, having told South Africa that her moral standards are so conspicuously below those of Saudi Arabia and Oman that she cannot receive the arms which they receive, they will get from her the trade, gold and military support, all of which we conspicuously need at present? Are the Government satisfied that they have not done even more damage than the forfeiting of this order?

Sir Dingle Foot: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that it is wounding to South Africa, a proud people, if we deny them arms for external defence. Why was it not wounding to that proud people when his Government denied them arms for internal repressions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There is a clear distinction. We indicated to them with complete frankness that we did not like the policy ofapartheid and, therefore, could not supply arms specifically required for the purpose of enforcing it. That is a logical and sensible attitude. We did not say, "You are so evil a people, so evil a régime, that you are unfitted to receive arms to protect you against external aggression. And in the view of some Government supporters, you are unfit even to have normal trade relations with us." The right hon. and learned Gentleman will see an immense distinction there.
What will the Government do to remedy the great damage to our relations with South Africa and so to our economy? This is, of course, the policy of the Prime Minister. Everybody knows it. He makes a habit of this. He insists on taking a step which is logically quite indefensible and which will do great damage to the country's economy for the sake of appeasing his hon. Friends below the Gangway. It is not the first

time that he has done it. He did so very soon after the beginning of his Premiership over the Spanish ships, and so—and this is a rather alarming thought in the context of Simonstown—started off the trouble over Gibraltar. He lost then the chance of considerable orders for our shipyards for many years.
Now, with a certain symmetry, towards the end of his Premiership, he has done the same thing and thrown away orders which would have helped us for many years to come. Therefore, when we come to the next election and posters of the Prime Minister are displayed about the country showing frankness, simple honesty, the pipe, and all the usual props, there should be inscribed under them these words:
 Was this the face that lost a thousand ships?
And ruined the empty shipyards of the Clyde?
Sweet Harold, make us bankrupt with thy lips.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: It has been argued that this is a question of morals. I shall try to examine the various moral aspects which have been raised. First, there is the question that, if we supply these arms, we should be flying in the face of the United Nations. This was a non-mandatory recommendation. At the time, the British Government distinguished between arms for internal repression and arms for external defence. It is one of a number of non-mandatory recommendations, including a very recent one condemning our undemocratic action in consulting the citizens of Gibraltar about whom they would prefer to be governed by and demanding that we hand over Gibraltar to the semi-Fascist State of Spain. I think that, without any undue breach of morals, we have a certain right to be selective as to such directions of our foreign policy.
Next, we are told that trading in arms —the merchandise of death—is of itself immoral. I move a little this way, but I find it a little difficult to believe that that argument lies in the mouth of a Government who appointed Mr. Raymond Brown as a super-salesman to push our arms sales and who are doing all they can to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East—selling to a slave-owning community dedicated to


a war, which it claims to be in existence —a war of an entirely racialist description —to destroy Israel.
The third moral point concernsapartheid which is apparently where one community, a minority, exercises power over a majority which it seeks to develop separately. South Africa is not the only instance. Outer Mongolia and Tibet are two other examples of which we hear less. But if our objection toapartheid is a moral one, why do we confine it to arms? After all, South Africa is our third biggest customer. South Africa is where our gold comes from and only a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs was in South Africa seeking to improve our relations and to persuade them to assist us in our quarrel with Rhodesia. Once again, we are not in the happiest position to be moral aboutapartheid
Having dealt with the moral aspects, let us look at the economic aspects. The thing which sticks out at once here is that, in a situation in which the credibility of our effort to get out of what, in all conscience, is an awful mess depends upon our seriousness in moving into an export boom, an export expansion, we start that right off by turning down an export contract of £150 million to £200 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said, "This is not real because, before very long, the shipyards and the aircraft industry will be suffering from over-employment." I wish to heaven that I could believe it. Where is this additional demand—the new market—to come from? Who wants it, and where are we finding it.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has made a mistake. I said no such thing.

Mr. Paget: I apologise. I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett). Anyway, it is an argument which I do not think stands up. I do not think that it is serious to say that it is unnecessary to look for export orders because we should not be able to fulfil them. It is not a serious way to deal with our difficulties.
The other argument is that, if we take the trade of South Africa, we shall lose the trade of the black African States. Let us be realistic about this. Africa is divided by the Zambesi River. South of the Zambesi there is trade; north of it there is charity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] North of the Zambesi there is not a single credit-worthy country.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is wrong with charity?

Mr. Paget: I am all in favour of it, but it is not trade and it will not get us out of our difficulties. There is not a Government north of the Zambesi who will not trade with anyone who will give them credit, and that includes Rhodesia. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why sanctions have broken down. Every black African country is trading with Rhodesia, so do not let us kid ourselves that we should lose black African trade because of this.
Now I come to what I regard as by far the most serious question—that of foreign policy—the injury to our own and to world security from this action. To begin with one of the most trifling examples. This decision, of course, means that Rhodesia becomes a republic completely outside our influence. That will happen almost automatically and it will not help the people to whom we owe a trust in Rhodesia, the Rhodesian Africans, that Rhodesia will now be a republic closely linked to South Africa. And how does the Beira blockade operate without Simonstown? So Rhodesia goes.
But there is a more important factor here—France. France—and this will be the effect of the Government's policy— will take our place in South Africa. This suits the French book wonderfully. They are playing for gold and, of course, the increase in the price of gold, the breaking of the dollar, would suit South Africa wonderfully. Here is a natural alliance which is available and one of the first things that will happen is that the gold of South Africa which once automatically came to London will be going to Paris.
But even more important is Simons-town. We have lost one of the entrances to the Indian Ocean—the Suez Canal. The other entrance is controlled by Simonstown and for that purpose we


have an alliance with South Africa, an alliance of a naval description to control one of the entrances to the Indian Ocean and our communications with Australia and New Zealand. That will go. The South Africans, having been treated in this kind of way, will not continue with that alliance. We shall find the French in Simonstown instead.
That will be very sticky indeed, because Egypt is rapidly becoming a French client. De Gaulle, who has an Anglo-Saxon phobia, whose desire is to frustrate the Anglo- American Atlantic conception, playing for everything that is against us, will find himself in control not only of the sources of gold, but of both the entrances to the Indian Ocean. This is among the most perilous situations in which it would be possible to place ourselves.
I have dealt with the morals of this and with the economics and with the foreign affairs aspect, but, of course, all these are irrelevant, because what this is really about is party management. The real answer is that the Prime Minister, having made an awful mess of things, is looking for friends. He has needed to do so before. I remember when he was the most reactionary Right-wing Minister in the Attlee Government, with a bonfire of controls which turned our destiny, and then Gaitskell was promoted over his head and there was a matter of principle concerning teeth and spectacles, and the Left was available. He became the leader of the party and the Prime Minister on the pressure of the Left. [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not give you a job."] Yes, he did not give me a job. I was disappointed at the time, but, by God, I have been thankful since.
The Left having put him to office and he having turned out, in fact, to be the most Right-wing Prime Minister since Neville Chamberlain, he now needs the Left again. I happen to have come from a Quaker family and we have a saying, "If thy friend deceive thee once, blame him; if he deceive thee twice, blame thyself."
The Left are nicer people than I am, more believing, more credulous, in fact, naturals for a "con man". Over and over again, they seem to fall for it. They have been screaming about Vietnam

during all this period when everything they were elected for has been surrendered. In Vietnam they have neither power nor influence, but that satisfies them.
Now let us look at the skill of the situation. The Prime Minister's skill in this must be recognised. As each action comes he will be in a position to say, "Ah, but this was part of the price of a great principle. My old principle of teeth and spectacles had to go for my new principle of South Africa. Of course, it is the other chaps in the Cabinet who are insisting on this, not me; I am your friend." This will go on all the way through.
For my part, I do not believe it. We have trodden a disastrous road. There has been one trouble with this Government. The trouble can be summed up in one simple word. It is, "Wilson", and I think that we shall not get on decently until he goes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Sir Derek Walker-Smith.

Mr. Emrys Hushes: On a point of order. Without in any way wishing to influence the Chair, may I point out that up to now we have had three speeches and are now to have a fourth, which will be four Conservative speeches, against one from the Labour benches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question of selection is very difficult in a debate like this, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will leave it to the Chair.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has just referred to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) as a Conservative speech. It was certainly a speech of great lucidity and power. I take it that that is what he means by ascribing to it the epithet "Conservative". It was a devastating and penetrating analysis both of the effects of the Government's decision in this matter and the motives which underlie it. This is a decision misconceived and fraught with great economic peril for this country.
I do not believe that the decision was taken on moral grounds. I do not believe


that it was taken on economic grounds, nor yet on constitutional or strategic grounds. It was a decision taken solely in order to conciliate the more vociferous and less thoughtful members of the Labour Party. It was a decision taken solely by reference to considerations of party position and personal power.
That is an ugly spectacle, an ugly spectacle which the Prime Minister has characteristically sought to gloss over with a patina of respectability. He has tried to whitewash it with a United Nations resolution; but in this case the whitewash just will not wash. It is not a resolution which obliges the Government to risk bankrupting our already imperilled and diminished economy, not a mandatory decision of the United Nations, not an executive decision of the Security Council which, under the terms of Article 25, member States are bound to agree and to carry out, but merely an exhortation or what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has called a recommendation.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley): rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I want to be brief, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman will be extremely brief.

Mr. Hooley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that we are doing this because of some minority conspiracy within the House. Is he not aware that 64 nations, including every one of our major allies but one, are operating this arms embargo?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am coming to that in a moment. I put this point to the Prime Minister yesterday and at that stage he did not seem to know which were the nations which were not carrying it out.
Let us look first at the resolution and then at the response which it has had. The resolution is not a decision of the Security Council under Article 25. It does not comply with the requirements of Article 27, which require a minimum of seven votes, with the concurring votes of the permanent members, because in the case of this resolution two of the three abstentions were those of two of the permanent members. It is, therefore, not a decision of the Security Council, not mandatory, not unanimous, and not

universally abided by. It is simply an exhortation, in the words of the resolution calling upon all States
 to cease forthwith the sale and shipment to South Africa of arms …
I now come to the resolution's reception and how far it has been put into effect, which is the reply to the hon. Member. Of course, the resolution was certain of an acquiescent response from the great majority of member States of the United Nations. They had no trouble in accepting a resolution to cease forthwith supplying arms, and for the best of reasons—they had never started. They did not have the capacity to produce or supply them had they been so minded. For those nations therefore the warm glow of an inexpensive and vicarious virtue; for Britain the icy chill of a downturn of the balance of payments.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick): rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I will not give way.

Mr. Faulds: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way. I remind hon. Members that there is only a short time for this debate and that many hon. Members want to speak.

Mr. Faulds: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No. It is known perfectly well that I am always willing to give way, but this is a very short debate and I have already given way once. If I were tempted to give way again, it would be to an hon. Member who had been here throughout the debate.
Paragraph 13 of the Resolution requests all member states:
… to take such steps as they deem appropriate to persuade the Government of the Republic of South Africa to comply with the present situation.
That again is a request, not an injunction, still less a command. Some member nations will take heed of the request, especially those who can take heed of it at no cost to themselves; some will turn a deaf ear, and some of those will get the business from those who hearken to it.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: But we concurred in it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The taking of steps that are deemed to be appropriate means that most member nations will just talk while Britain is expected to act and make this economic sacrifice. In other words, South Africa must be persuaded by the United Nations, cost Britain what it may.
Therefore, I say that this non-executive decision, this recommendation, as it is, of the United Nations, puts no obligation on this Government, either legal or moral, to inflict this hurt on the economy and life of Britain.
I submit these two propositions. First Britain should not, and cannot afford to, put the life and economy of Britain in pawn to resolutions of the United Nations of a non-mandatory character, and contrary to the interests of this country. If they do so, then the power of decision in vital matters of British concern passes from Whitehall and Westminster to the lobbies and corridors of the United Nations.
There is another non-mandatory resolution of the United Nations highly relevant in this context. It is that relating to Gibraltar. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite to pay the same slavish obedience to that resolution as they have to the arms resolution? Are they to abandon Gibraltar to Spain, against the express will of the inhabitants, on the same doctrine that they are now saying binds their actions in this matter?
The second proposition is this: Britain cannot afford the luxury of trading only with those nations of whose domestic policies she is able to approve. It has never been our practice to do so. Commerce cannot operate on that basis of nice selectivity.
The staunchly teetotal greengrocer does not refuse to supply the publican and the hotelier, and is not deemed to approve their principles by so doing. Where would it end? Look at the indictment on which the United Nations resolution is based. It criticises the Government of South Africa and urges them to abolish the practice of imprisonment without charge or access to counsel or without the right of prompt trial. It endorses and subscribes to the main conclusions of the group of experts, that all the people of South Africa should be brought into consultation, and should

thus be enabled to decide the future of their country at a national level.
I agree with those propositions. I agree with the rule of law and with democratic institutions. But how many of our customers in the world have completely clean hands in regard to the rule of law and democratic institutions? How many of those with whom we trade, with whom we are urged to do more trade, practise a two-party system, different from what we do in this House—one party in power and the other in gaol. Yet there are these countries in Asia, Europe and Africa, with whom the same hon. Members, who are clamouring against the export of arms to South Africa, are urging ever more trade.
There are only two explanations of such an attitude. One is stupidity and the other is hypocrisy, or it could be both. But, when it comes to the Prime Minister, it is not difficult to make a guess.
After all he is very rarely stupid. He is expressing great concern atapartheid in South Africa, and talks of the Security Council. But the separation with which he is really concerned is the separation within the ranks of the Labour Party, and the security with which he is concerned is the security of his own power and position. For all this Britain must pay, in heavy loss of earnings and all the consequential losses which will flow through our economy. Britain will pay with cuts in public expenditure, heavy reductions in housing, hospitals, schools, roads; and some will pay in the bitter coin of unemployment.
The sad thing is that the British people cannot pass on the cost directly to the Government. They can, however, exact a penalty from the Government in due time—exact a penalty that they will be loath to pay, and strip them of the perquisites and privileges of power to which they cling with such shameless tenacity. As soon as the opportunity arises right hon. Gentlemen may be sure that the country will condemn them as justly and as absolutely as we condemn them in this House today.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Ben Whaitaker: As we debate here, making party political points on both sides of the House, there lies in a hospital in Cape Town, a South African man fighting for his life after an


historic and epoch-making operation. As we discussapartheid, well removed from it, let us for a moment reflect on the human implications of what we are talking about. Let us reflect that if an ancestor of the man fighting for his life tonight in Cape Town—for whom the whole House will undoubtedly wish a speedy and successful recovery—had been coloured, or if the ancestor of the girl who supplied the heart had been coloured,:hat operation would not have taken place.
There would have been no blood transferred between those two bodies. The man would not have been allowed in the hospital, which is for whites only. He would not have been taken there in the ambulance, whatever the risks to his life, because ambulances are reserved exclusively, irrespective of the threat to life, for separate races.
This is the subject about which we are talking tonight and these are the issues. It is because we on this side of the House respect very sincerely those South Africans who are decent, of all races, who are making sacrifices enormously about anything that we are called upon to make, it is because we believe in the decency of these people, that we on this side, and I know some lion. Members opposite who have not yet spoken, feel strongly on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who? Name them."] I will not embarrass them by mentioning them, but there are hon. Members of the Conservative Party who support us on this issue.
We heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who I am surprised to see is not in his place, that one of the excuses for this bloody
traffic was that South Africa helped us in the last war. Let us reflect that the majority of those people who made sacrifices for us in the last war were coloured South Africans—

Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Lang-stone): On a point of order. Those facts are totally incorrect.

Mr. Whitaker: Furthermore, let us reflect—and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to deny this fact—that the leader of the present regime in South Africa helped not democracy but the Nazis during the war. He

supported Hitler—like Marshal Ky in South Vietnam, who still admires Hitler. Mr. Vorster was interned during the last war for doing so. This is the gentleman to whom Conservative Members said in an early day Motion we should sell arms, praying in aid his record in the last war.
I will not speak long because I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak. During the last war, Britain made sacrifices against her own financial interests. She has done so constantly in her history, and it is one of the reasons why we are proud to be British. This country, as Mr. Macmillan rightly said, recognises the wind of change in Africa. We have finished the imperial role in our history. It may be—and pray God it will be so— that we have a moral role still to play in this world. But a people live by more than bread alone. Over the past few weeks we have constantly debated the economic crisis in this country, but let us not forget that there are more important values than finance in the world.

Sir Cyril Osborne: We cannot live without it.

Mr. Whitaker: Let us not lose sight of the fact that the standard of living in this country is immeasurably greater than that in most of the rest of the world. When we talk about sacrifices, let us talk in that relative scale.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at present an aircraft factory is being constructed in South Africa? A dockyard there is building small naval vessels. Would the hon. Gentleman prevent the Government from selling machine tools and equipment for those two establishments to operate?

Mr. Whitaker: As I understand it, the debate is about arms for South Africa. I do not wish to get out of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If the Opposition would like to use one of their Supply days to debate the concept of any trade with South Africa, we on this side should be ready to debate it.
We believe that on this issue the people believe that any Government, irrespective of party, must show moral leadership to of Britain look to a Government for more than just financial considerations. We a country. The political philosophy of "You have never had it so good" was


put squarely before the people of Britain and it was decisively rejected by the same people. We believe that one of the reasons why the Conservative Administration fell was their total preoccupation with material values.
I admit the criticism—and I have said so with all humility—that it is very easy for certain people such as those such as myself living in my constituency to advance moral philosophies when it costs them but little. I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in such places as Rochester, Sheffield, Glasgow, and Southampton, which depends on trade with South Africa, who have joined us in unanimously pressing that this bloody traffic should be finished. I have the deepest respect for those Lancashire trade unionists who yesterday sent a telegram to the Prime Minister congratulating him on the decision of the Cabinet, despite the cost to them. This is a telegram which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire did not read out, although it is printed in today's newspapers.
There was a very similar debate to this in the House in the last century. On that occasion, Wilberforce was told constantly that this country could not afford to end the slave trade. Our ancestors said—I will not say to which party they belonged—that, although they were against slavery on moral grounds and it was a very good Hampstead intellectual cause, the economy of this country, unfortunately, depended on the slave trade and therefore it was not the time, if ever, that anything should be done about it. I sometimes wonder whether some hon. Members opposite would today sell slaves to Saudi Arabia if they thought that it would help our balance of payments.

Viscount Lambton: While the hon. Gentleman is talking about the slave trade, may I ask him whether he has protested against his Government sending arms to Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Whitaker: I and many of my hon. Friends have done so. I should be glad to receive support from hon. Members opposite against our support for the feudal régimes in the Persian Gulf, in particular, which the majority of the Labour Party totally disown.
When we talk about the financial sacrifice which we are being called upon to make on behalf of the nation, let us weigh in the balance the sacrifices made by the South Africans, for example at the time of Sharpeville. Let us put in perspective the odd shillings or £s which is our contribution to a question on which the British Parliament is entirely unanimous, and that is that democracy should come to Southern Africa—a sentiment expressed by Mr. Harold Macmillan himself.
There was a speech made in Trafalgar Square on this issue in I believe 1964, when the Prime Minister, as he now is, said rightly that this bloody traffic is a matter of principle. He said in a television interview that those who did not recognise that it was a matter of principle
 should get out of public life ".
Having made that speech, he has been twice re-elected. I believe that the emphasis on principle, contrasted with the "You have never had it so good" philosophy, was one of the reasons which contributed to our election victory.
What has happened to the South African situation since then? What changes have taken place since this policy was instigated in 1964? Are there any reasons why we should change our policy, because that is what we are being asked to do? We are being asked, not to take a new decision, but to stand on the principle on which we were elected. Three things have happened. First, South African armed forces are tonight occupying territory in Rhodesia for which the British Parliament claims legal responsibility. I understand that this is the first invasion of British territory which has taken place in our history, which the Conservative Party has not asked should be repulsed immediately by sending a gunboat.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Smith recently announced that there are no South African troops on Rhodesian soil?

Mr. Faulds: And he believes it.

Mr. Whitaker: I bow to the hon. Member's "hot line" to Mr. Smith. But I regard statements from such a source as worthless. I have still to hear any Conservative Member protest against the undoubted presence of South African troops


on British Rhodesian soil during the last few months. I find this strange.
The second thing which has happened is that South Africa has threatened to bomb Zambia. Thirdly, she is defying the United Nations, including a very strong protest two days ago from the United States, about South West Africa. We should view the arms for which South Africa is asking in the context of the South West African coast line and the threats she has been making to Tanzania, on the East African coast line. It is unrealistic any longer to draw a distinction between internal and external South African arms when we know that civil war is being fought by South African nationalists on one side and the régime on the other inside and outside South Africa's borders.
Finally, I urge that it is in Britain's own self-interest that we maintain this arms embargo. If moral considerations do not appeal to hon. Members opposite, let us turn back to naked self-interest. It is my opinion, for what it is worth, that much the gravest danger facing, not only this nation, but the world is the possibility of a race war. This transcends our previous worry about a world political war.
There are many people in the United States, Canada, in the Commonwealth and among our allies in the United Nations who also have made sacrifices in not supplying arms to South Africa and who look to Britain to uphold the Western principle of democracy and to ensure that the next war, if it comes, is not divided simply according to the colour of a man's skin—whether he be black or white—but between those who believe in democracy, irrespective of whether it is in South Africa, Russia, Cuba or China, and those who do not. For my part, I respect the British people and the British nation too much to believe it of them that they would wish us tonight to sell every principle for which this House has ever stood, whether it is in Southern Africa on this issue or in Rhodesia, simply because a new price has been put upon it.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles): I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) because towards the end of his speech he touched upon the real issue in this debate. I shall return later in my

speech to the question of the future likely conflict in Africa.
Two arguments seem to me to have been put forward to excuse—that is the only word which can be used—the continuation of the sale of arms to South Africa. The first argument is that if we do not do it others will. That is a totally amoral argument and one which, if continued into other walks of life, could produce all sorts of peculiar situations.
The Government could justify setting up a stall in Trafalgar Square or elsewhere to sell drugs to all the addicts who undoubtedly get them to the great profit of certain racketeers. The Government could make a lot of money. They could, I suppose, help the taxation situation by raising a certain amount of revenue in that way. Nobody, however, would suggest that that was the right thing to do simply because, if the Government do not do it, people will find their sources of supply elsewhere. That is an exactly parallel argument.
The other argument is that there are other Governments in the world which we dislike apart from the Government of South Africa; but what distinguishes South Africa from any other country whose régime we dislike, whether of the Right or of the Left, in this or in any other Continent, is that South Africa is the only other country where the whole machinery of government and the whole motivation of the established régime is to keep the vast majority of the population of a different colour as permanently second-class citizens in subjugation. That is the distinction between South Africa and our attitudes to it and our attitude to other countries which, temporarily or for a long time, may have regimes with whose political colour or whose policies we happen to disagree.
I listened with interest to the opening speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). It is well known that he and other hon. Members —for example, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) —have always been a group within the Conservative Party who, to give them credit, have always had a consistent line on African affairs, whether it was the Central African Federation, Katanga, Rhodesia, or South Africa. They are


always consistent. I have always violently disagreed with their views, but I respect them. They hold their views just as sincerely as I hold mine. That was the view which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire put forward today.
What I find disturbing is that we have for the first time today a situation where the Leader of the Opposition is, apparently, to appear in support of that section of the Conservative Party. That is the disturbing trend—

Sir John Rodgers: rose—

Mr. Steel: Let me finish. The political significance as I see it of this debate is that the Conservative Party having lost at the last election the former hon. Member for Smethwick, the Leader of the Opposition rushes in, apparently, to take his place.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is, perhaps, scarcely worth commenting on what the hon. Member has said, but it is worth while reminding him that Conservative policy has been consistent over the years. We have supplied arms to South Africa for external defence and used our licensing system to make sure that arms did not go for civil strife. That is what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will say if the hon. Member has patience to wait.

Sir J. Rodgers: rose—

Mr. Steel: I cannot give way again. I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). He was head of the Government when they supported the two United Nations resolutions of 1963 and 1964, which have been so much discussed. The distinction which must be recognised between the United Nations resolution on that occasion, although it is not mandatory, and the resolution on Gibraltar is that we did not support the resolution on Gibraltar. We supported the resolution concerning South Africa through the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was leader. That resolution referred, among other things, to the sale of military vehicles.
Under the present Government, we have accepted a contract for the sale of four-wheeled military vehicles which was refused by both the United States and

Canada. Who is to say whether those vehicles will be used for internal repression or are part of the external defence of South Africa? The United States Government did not share our view. The Canadian Government did not either. Our present Government, however, under the safeguard and letout which the previous Government provided for them, allowed that contract to go through. It is a little late in the day for the Prime Minister to appear as the guardian of our moral principles in this matter.
I am extremely disturbed that the Leader of the Opposition, to whose speech I shall listen with interest and who is one of the sponsors of Human Rights Year, should this afternoon make the speech which he is about to make, apparently, as his first contribution to Human Rights Year.
I want to be very brief. The nub of the argument is that we are losing orders estimated to cost something like £240 million and that that is a serious loss to this country. Of course it is. Do not let the Government try to say to us, however, as I suspect that they will, that if we accept that loss we must accept cuts in other desirable parts of public spending. Let them look instead to the one saving which could be made by scrapping the F111 contract. I shall not develop that theme, because I would be out of order in doing so, but that one contract alone would save more expenditure than the value of the arms contract for South Africa.

Mr. Woodrow Wyatt: Apart from whether the F111 would serve a particularly useful purpose, it is being paid for by offset arms agreements which will lapse if we cease to buy the F111. There is, therefore, no money to be saved by not buying it.

Mr. Steel: I do not accept that. The Minister of Defence has given an answer in the House that the gross cost is over £400 million. He has refused to state the net cost of the aircraft. However, there is no need to go into detailed arithmetical figures. There is a major saving of about £300 million which could be made. We are buying a possibly bad plane and one which we do not need. That is the direction in which the Government should consider their programme of cuts.
Saracen tanks were used at Sharpeville. Were they supplied to the South African Government for external defence purposes? The distinction which was made in accepting the United Nations resolution was entirely artificial. One good thing which the present Government have done was to end that wholly artificial distinction.
If we went forward to sell Buccaneers, they would, presumably, be used from the airport in the Caprivi Strip, 600 miles north of South Africa. Would those aircraft be used for external defence purposes, or would they be used for possible aggression to other parts of Africa north of the Caprivi Strip, as has been threatened by the South African Government, towards Zambia and other countries to the north of Rhodesia?
If we reduce the level of the argument for a short moment to the economic argument only, surely we have to take into account that if we went back on our acceptance of the United Nations resolution we should lose a great deal of goodwill and, therefore, in the future, a great deal of developing trade which we are bound to have with Africa and Asia. If we take that argument and reduce the level to merely balancing the books, let us at least take that into account and recognise that the loss of these contracts when set against the other losses is not all that great.
I believe, however, as the hon. Member for Hampstead said, that the main issue in this debate is what we regard Britain's role to be and how we regard the future development of the African continent. The greatest danger which faces the world is not the spread of the hydrogen bomb, but the growing conflict between rich and poor which, unhappily, coincides with the conflict between white and other colours. That is one of the real issues which faces us.
We are getting ourselves into the position when the South African Government, possibly with Rhodesia and possibly with Portugal and her overseas territories, is developing a system of Government which must inevitably lead either to internal conflict or to conflict between different sections of the African continent, because there is no record in history of a minority being able for an indefinite period to hold down a majority. If that

conflict comes, as I believe it will unless these policies change, whose side will we be on? That is the question we should be asking ourselves. There is no doubt in my mind that we must clearly be on the side of the equality of mankind and we must reject the racialist views of the Governments of Southern Africa. That is the real argument against indulging in this traffic.
I was one of a small group of people who sought to see the Foreign Secretary—and he kindly saw us—before this matter became one of public concern. One great myth about objections to any change in policy is that these objections come from a sort of militant Left-wing group in the Labour Party. That delegation included the associate secretary of the International Committee of the British Council of Churches and the chairman of the United Nations Association, a former Conservative Member of this House, and it was led by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party. The Motion on the Order Paper was signed by a variety of members of differing views within the Labour Party. Therefore, it is not true to suggest that the only pressure on the Government to stick by their policy comes from a pressure group within the Labour Party. We greatly underestimate the fibre and calibre of the people of this country if we believe that we can go to them and sell them soft soap and talk to them the whole time in purely selfish terms.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire in his Motion, is saying that our principles are a luxury that we cannot afford. I sincerely hope that neither the present Government nor the Conservative Party wish to see the country reduced to that state.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: Sometimes it is difficult to appreciate whether hon. Members opposite are speaking sincerely or artificially. The grave paradox tonight is that I hope they have been speaking in an artificial manner. I hope that they do not believe some of the appalling things that they have been saying, because their contributions tonight have done nothing but sully the reputation of the House of Commons.
Not long ago I was in Africa. When we have spoken to people from other


climes who have come to this House or when we have gone to their countries, we have always been proud of what this nation stands for. We have always said that we believe in the rule of law, in democracy, in one man one vote, and that we are appalled at all forms of racialism. There was a great opportunity for the Opposition on this issue, if they had a man of courage to lead them, to have allied themselves with the statement of my right hon. Friend and declared that the House of Commons placed itself at the head of the British people in declaring full support of a vitally important principle which can have such grave import on the affairs of mankind in the years to come.
Listening to some of the contributions from hon. Members opposite took me back to some of the things we heard before the war. I will not say that the situation is absolutely analogous. We were told what an insane thing it would be for our miners not to agree to dig coal for Mussolini, and when we objected to steel and scrap iron going to Hamburg because we felt that it would come back in the shape of bombs on the heads of our Cockney colleagues, we were told we were being unrealistic and not facing the facts. However, we were right then and I think we are right today.
One tragedy of this debate is how gruesome the lesson has to be before it penetrates into the minds of Conservatives. This is the really terrible thing that frightens one.
We have heard very little about apartheid tonight from hon. Members opposite. No one has mentioned the word. It is like saying that before the war we never heard of concentration camps or the torment suffered by a man if he happened to have been born a Jew. The same situation applies to the hundreds of thousands in South Africa who did not have the good sense to elect to have completely white parents. Does not this mean anything to right hon. Gentlemen opposite? If so, let them get up and say so. I will give way. Does it mean anything to them?

Sir J. Rodgers: rose—

Mr. Molloy: I was talking to those on the Front Bench—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is exercising a selectivity which excludes the hon. Member.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman must not be so keen to demote himself to the Tory Front Bench. Let them get up and say something. They do not need the hon. Member to defend them. Let them get up if they want to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will not waste any more time. This is a very short debate and a lot of hon. Members still want to take part.

Mr. Molloy: Some of the arguments that we have heard advanced by hon. Members opposite have been of the lowest form of sophistry. I can hardly imagine that some of these points have been meant by those who have uttered them. Indeed, I sincerely hope that the arguments being advanced were not actually to do with apartheid or South Africa but were merely political points to try to damage the Labour Party. I hope that this is true. If it is not—now listen to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—then the obverse side of the coin is that these semi-apologies, that they do not really agree with apartheid but they are all opposed to it, are phoney. They cannot have it both ways. They must search in their minds where they stand on this matter.
I want to refer to the contribution from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) which I thought was a pretty vulgar attack on the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—I can understand that being humorous to hon. Members opposite. Anything that is degrading and vulgar is humorous to Conservatives.
I was about to say that my hon. and learned Friend is entitled to his view, but it was regrettable that in the tail end of his speech he should have sunk to such low language in referring to my right hon. Friend. He might have maintained a far better argument in putting forward his view rather than indulging in the sort of stuff he indulged in. He referred to those of us who might be on the Left of the Labour Party. I would answer him by saying that it is not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what


humanity, reason and justice tells me that I ought to do. I hope that my party will always behave in that way.
We have been taunted by hon. Members opposite that we might have some political price to pay for this. I hope that we will have the courage to go through with this argument to the bitter end, because I believe that hon. Members opposite have misjudged the character of the majority of ordinary people in this country. I believe that when they come to examine this matter, when they see what is really involved, they will be proud of the action that this Government and their supporters have taken in their name. We are opposed to the evil of apartheid in heir name. The British people have to say that we were right to do what we have done or that we were not right. I believe that they will say we were right.

Captain Walter Elliot: I think it is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman is basing his argument on moral principles. Would he not agree that military strength is built on a strong economic basis? Certainly the Prime Minister has said this. Will he explain to the House the moral distinction between fostering one and not the other.

Mr. Molloy: I did not catch all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, because one of my hon. Friends was speaking to me. Perhaps he will repeat the point, and I can then deal with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it would be very unfair to the House and to hon. Members waiting to take part in the debate if I were to allow repetition.

Mr. Molloy: I am compelled to apologise to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I did not gather what he was saying.
The quintessence of the argument is the attiude to apartheid. It does not matter about the economic arguments which we have heard from one side of the House or the other. Millions of people all over the world who are coloured or partly coloured will judge the issue on that specific point, rather than on the economic one. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Gentleman is wrong."] I am not wrong. I believe this to be true. People all over the world, be they black, or yellow, or white, will judge this issue because they have a self-interest in it. They

will make up their minds about who has done the right thing.
I believe that we are doing the right thing for South Africa herself. I believe that we are doing something which will encourage the liberal and decent forces in South Africa to take heart in their efforts to do away with this appalling policy. I think that the House has missed a great opportunity by not being united on this issue, but I am proud of the fact that I sit on the side of the House which is the champion of decency, democracy, and what I believe is the aspiration of all mankind, namely, a sane and decent world.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: There is one aspect of the situation in South Africa which has not been touched on during the debate, and that is that international pressure against that country has so far been entirely counter-productive. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite are making a mistake if they forget that the white people of South Africa spring from British and Afrikaner stock, two of the toughest races in the world when faced with adversity. When their backs were to the wall, as they were at the time of Sharpeville, through international pressure, they reacted by closing their ranks. They were tough, and they built up their country.
The only result so far of international pressure against South Africa has been to increase her economic growth, and to make her more stable than ever. It has led to increased investment by the Western powers in that country. It has been said that British investment alone is worth more than £1,000 million. This is as much as the total British investment in the rest of the African continent put together, including Nigerian oil.
I also believe that there is less internal pressure in South Africa today than for many years. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been to South Africa in recent months. I think that they must agree with me when I say that for the first time since the war South Africa, in the person of the new South African Prime Minister, is showing a tendency to look outwards. Under international pressure, South Africa has been forced to look inwards. Now, just because this international pressure has


been somewhat relaxed, she is starting to look outwards.
If one compares conditions in South Africa today with the rest of Africa, one realises the degree of stability she enjoys. Since the Government opposite were voted to office there have been no fewer than 17 different revolutions, or coups d'état, in independent African States. Black Africans themselves are now beginning to think. Some of them are already exchanging diplomatic representatives with South Africa, and other independent African countries are prepared to follow their lead. In many cases trade between South Africa and independent African countries is increasing year by year, so all the froth and fury that we heard from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) does not seem to cut much ice in black Africa itself.
I have always found the Africans to be very realistic and sensible people. They consider the facts of life, and one of the facts of life is that their countries have to trade with South Africa. By trading with her, they will gradually break down the rigours of apartheid. I do not believe that it can be broken down by force, and by international pressure. This can be done only by example, by showing that black and white can live and work together.
This Socialist thinking is out of date. Many hon. Members opposite, especially those on the Left wing, are so blinded by prejudice that they cannot see that there are two sides to the story in Africa today. Some of them even support terrorism, and would like to see bloodshed in South Africa. The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) referred to the terrorist incursion from Zambia, which took place when I was in Rhodesia. Perhaps I might quote a sentence from a communiqué issued in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia. It was signed by Robert Chikerema, the Vice-President of the Zimbabwe African People's Union, and by Mr. Tambo, the Deputy President of the African National Congress. The communiqué said that the force was c0omposed of Africans from both these organisations, and referred to them
 fighting their way to strike at the Boers themselves in South Africa.
That was an attempt to invade South Africa itself. In those circumstances, who

could blame the South Africans for wanting to send their police officers to Rhodesia before their own frontiers were violated by these terrorists? It seems to me an action which any Government would take, and they had the courtesy to inform Her Majesty's Government at the time.
I turn, now, to the economic points, which I shall put briefly and shall then concern myself rather more with defence. Trade figures between Britain and South Africa, both imports and exports, have been quoted. What has not been said so far is that our exports to South Africa this year compared with last year are up by 12½ per cent., and that imports from South Africa for the comparable period are up by 14 per cent.
I believe that this decision by the Government will be regarded by all South Africans, black and white, as an insult to their country. I believe that it will have serious repercussions on our trade with South Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) quoted a telegram from a large firm in Sheffield. I have had one from a smaller firm in Hull saying the same thing, and I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be flooded with similar telegrams from their constituents, which will bring home to them the foolishness of the Government's decision announced yesterday.
South Africa is one of the best markets in the world for British lorries. What will this decision mean to Oxford and Coventry? What will it mean in respect of textiles in Lancashire, or iron and steel in Wales, Durham and Middlesbrough, or shipping in Southampton? These are facts of life which hon. Gentlemen opposite must consider.
They might also consider that from the mines of South Africa come 70 per cent, of the reserves of the free world's gold supply. What will happen when the gold is no longer sold on the London market, but is sold in Paris? On the day when General de Gaulle has pronounced, as we expect, a veto on our entry into the Common Market, we are handing over to the French, on a plate, our second-best trading market in the world, Southern Africa. We are doing this because the Left wing of the Labour Party has shown the Government that it is in charge. It


has also shown the rest of the country that it is in charge. What is much more important, it has shown this to our creditors abroad. What will this look like to the International Monetary Fund? What effect will this have on the £? It is this for which they will have to answer to their constituents during the coming months, and I do not think that in six months' time we will hear from them the same kind of language that we have heard today.
I would like, now, to refer to another matter which has not been touched on in any detail, except by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). It seems almost inevitable now that the Simonstown Agreement will be abrogated. This means that the dockyard will no longer be available to carry out repairs to ships of the Royal Navy. South Africa is one of the most important communication centres for the Royal Navy, and it may no longer be open to us. The lion, and learned Member for Northampton spoke about the importance of the Indian Ocean, and the fact that our enemies already control one route. Now, by our action, we are cutting off our joint control of the second route. What no one has said is that more than 1,000 British ships have been bunkered in South African ports since the closing of the Suez Canal. What will happen if feeling in South Africa is so strong that it forces the South African Government to say that they will not assist our ships? What will that do to the £, and to British trade? I do not expect hon. Members on the back benches to consider these facts, but one is entitled to expect that the Government should consider the dangers in which they are placing this country.
Two years ago, South Africa started in Johannesburg a new infant aircraft industry, the first aircraft-building industry on the African continent. They have also started a shipbuilding industry in Durban. British firms could have been in at the birth of these industries, which will obviously be vitally important to Africa and the world. As a result of the Government's action in the past, in 1964, reinforced by their action yesterday, French firms have taken over the provision of guidance and technical advice to South Africa on aircraft, and the same is likely to happen over shipbuilding. These are the kind of important

matters, vital to our whole future, which we have thrown away by this decision.
As so many hon. Gentlemen have said, the decision is pure hypocrisy. One could appreciate the strength of mind of the Government if they said, "South Africa is so evil that we will send no arms and no form of goods. We will not trade with them at all. We will even abrogate and denounce the defence agreement which we have with them." But they have not said one of these things but merely, "We will not supply them with arms, although we know that Italy or France or some other country will do so."
This is a half-hearted way of tackling a problem which will achieve only the worst of every world. We will not raise British credit anywhere in the world by what has happened in this country in the last two days. Certainly, the Government's credit in this country could not have reached a lower level.
This decision will cause unemployment in my constituency. The Government have cancelled the P1154, part of which was to be built in my constituency, and then the final order for naval Buccaneers only a few weeks ago. Now, they have cancelled the follow-up order of 16 Buccaneers for the South African Government. I hope that my Front Bench will make it absolutely clear that Conservative policy on this subject has been consistent throughout. We have always said that we would supply arms for the external defence of South Africa and I hope that they will make it clear that when, in the near future, we are again the Government of this country, we will continue with that policy.
May I sum up what I think the decision of the Government has achieved? First, in South Africa, it will be followed by a growing dislike of Britain and all that is British. It may well be followed by a personal boycott of British goods by South African nationals. It will mean that France will supplant Britain as South Africa's main ally and friend, and it may well mean that South Africa will not only close down Simonstown but may seriously consider impeding the fuelling or bunkering of our ships using her ports.
In addition, it will have a very serious effect on our relations with Rhodesia. I believe that this has marked the end of


the road. Rhodesia will now have full South African support and any hope of reaching a compromise with the de facto government of Rhodesia has now been lost because of the Government's foolishness. What is more, this means that Rhodesia, whether she likes it or not—I believe that the majority of her leaders do not want this—will, of necessity, be forced closer and closer to South Africa and to the South African racial policy.
In this country, it will affect our trade and our defence and will have led to a further lack of confidence in the Government, which may again place the £ in danger, and only one man is to blame for all this—the Prime Minister. No one on this side ever thought that he would put the country before his party, but I thought that his skill as a politician was such that he would put the long term interests of his party before short-term gain. This, he has failed to do.
I thought that he would realise the economic implications and would supply certain arms to South Africa and try to reach a compromise with Rhodesia, knowing that this would help the economy by at least £500 million over the next three years. I thought that this was possible. Surely what matters to the Government is the state of the economy of this country in the six or 12 months before the next General Election. Now we know what it is likely to be.
I do not expect back benchers, who are either blinded by prejudice or have not sufficient knowledge to understand what is happening on the African continent, but I do expect the Prime Minister to give a lead. He has now done so and is clearly leading this country to disaster.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: I should like to speak on behalf of all those who signed the early day motion on this issue in congratulating the Government on their stand. In doing so, it would be remiss not to say, in particular, how much we admire the consistent stand of our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this issue.
Four arguments have been deployed against the Government's decision. The first is that there is somehow a contradiction between indulging in general

trade and, at the same time, opposing trade in armaments. I would put only one question to those who say this: do they seriously suggest that it is illogical to feed the delinquent and to be against putting a gun in his hand?
The second point which seems to have been deployed in this debate is the argument that if we do not indulge in this trade, someone else will. This seems to be the most hollow argument of all, because, if logically carried through, it would mean the complete disintegration of social values, leading to complete social anarchy. The advocates of this argument suggest that we should emulate France's example. I see nothing welcome in that suggestion. I was in the Middle East when French planes were attacking the Arabs at the very time that the President of France was claiming his friendship for the Arab people. The whole basis of opportunism in French foreign policy is almost deliberately designed to set back by decades the emergence of the international community to a rational and sane order.
The third argument deployed in this debate is that we can somehow differentiate between arms for internal security and those for external defence. Obviously, arms of any sort indicate a qualitative endorsement of the régime, which is not present in other forms of trade. It is absolutely clear to anyone who knows the first thing about South Africa that for two decades at least the Government there have been carefully zoning the majority African population into townships and reserves which can be dealt with very effectively by armaments used for external defence. We should also all remember that already arms suitable for external defence have been employed by the Rho-desian régime to suppress freedom fighters on British territory fighting for their elementary civil rights.
The fourth argument is that the economic situation is so serious that, despite the soundness of the arguments which I and others may advance, we cannot afford to deny the opportunity presented by this possibility of trade. While, first, we should not overlook the adverse effects on our growing trade in other parts of Africa and Asia of indulging in armaments trade with South Africa, I would put this practical argument to those who take this point of view. Surely it is dubious in an


economy like ours which will always be highly vulnerable, to become increasingly dependent on an area which is subject to so much political instability and potential political explosion.
We must see all this in real and meaningful proportions. As others have suggested, the real situation with which we are confronted is the growing gap in the international community between the wealthy nations and the poor nations, a gap which is underlined by race, a gap which presents us with the possibility that we may be entering an era of tension unprecedented even by the former ideological political conflicts which we have known in our time.
If we had taken this step of beginning to trade in arms with the regime of the Republic of South Africa, we would surely have been taking one more step towards a final breach in confidence between the races in the international community.
All hon. Members must remember that we are not arguing, in supporting the Government, that we are doing this because it is, somehow, an act of selfless morality. We are doing it because, in this nuclear age, we are inter-dependent in a very real sense. We cannot afford to ignore conflict and tension in any area of the world because in conflict and tension are the seeds of international warfare. We are following a sound, enlightened policy of self-interest as well as a policy of sound Socialist morality in supporting the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in this decision.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: The Prime Minister has kindly sent me a note explaining that it will not be possible for him to be here throughout my speech. I accept that and fully appreciate the position.
It is, perhaps, natural that, in a debate such as we have been having, emotions should at times run high and that a large part of the discussion should have been devoted to questions of morality. What we are debating is the Government's decision, announced yesterday, to refuse to sell arms for external defence to South Africa. As far as I know, there is little questioning by the Government that these arms are intended for external defence.
The House has been given very little information by the Government as to what really constituted the request. There have been indications in the Press that it was for three Leander class frigates, four surface vessels, including fleet supply vessels, some eight Shackletons for coastal maritime work and eight Comet Nimrods for the same purpose, 16 Buccaneer aircraft, air defence weapons and an air defence system, associated radar control equipment and coastal radar, amounting, in all, to some £200 million over a number of years.
These are arms for external defence. They are not for dealing with civil disturbances and I think that the Government have not challenged this fact. If one considers the nature of those arms, it is, as many hon. Members have said, difficult to see them being used for dealing with civil disturbances. There are always difficulties about deciding on the margin. The Conservative Administration had to face these problems and they had to use their best judgment in arriving at decisions.
Her Majesty's Government—and this is the second point of agreement to which I move—reconstituted the Simonstown Agreement. These arms for external defence are required primarily for naval defence in the South Atlantic. As a result of the renegotiation of the Simons-town Agreement by Her Majesty's Government, we, of course, use facilities not only in Simonstown, but in other ports in South Africa, and in the event of hostilities, South Africa is Britain's ally. This is the situation deliberately negotiated by Her Majesty's Government with that country, taking into account all the criticisms which hon. Gentlemen opposite have made this afternoon.
When this was renegotiated, the Under Secretary of State for the Navy explained it thus:
 One important change … is a change in the command structure.
Later, he went on:
 As part of this arrangement, the proposal is that the Chief of the South African Navy will take greater responsibility for the South African area in times at war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th Feb. 1967; Vol. 740, c. 1619.]
In other words, South Africa is a more important part of the command structure of Southern Atlantic defence now,


under the present Administration, than it was previously.
The position is, therefore, that the Government have deliberately negotiated for South Africa to take over these defence responsibilities—of which they want the benefit for this country, and rightly so—but are flatly refusing to allow South Africa to buy from this country the equipment with which to carry out its responsibilities. They want the job done. They are prepared to go on using the facilities—indeed, they want to—at Simonstown and elsewhere—and, of course, for ships' crews to go ashore in an apartheid country—but they will not allow the purchase of equipment. There is no logic in that, there is no morality in that and there is no question of principle in that.
This is not a case of supplying arms to a country hostile to our own interests. Nor is it a case of being asked to supply arms in an area where there is an international arms race going on, such as the Middle East. Since the war all Governments have refused to sell arms in those circumstances. These are arms for external action by a country which would be our ally in time of war.
In an interesting and, at times, moving speech, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) asked against whom the South Africans were expected to defend themselves. This is, of course, in the South Atlantic. It is the defence of the sea routes against any enemy which threatens this country and Western Europe, as well as the Commonwealth east of South Africa, including the Indian sub-continent, for which hon. Gentlemen opposite—quite rightly, especially through their own political history—have a deep attachment, respect and regard. This is the purpose of the South Atlantic Command. It has become even more important since the closure of the Suez Canal, and who can foretell when that will be reopened? In any case, for the large tankers and large general cargo ships which are now being built, the Cape will, in future, be the route.
It may, therefore, be the Soviet intention, in case of conflict, to disrupt that route. It is of vital interest to this country and to Europe that it be maintained. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not prepared to, and, indeed, they say that this

country is not able to maintain it on its own. It is becoming less and less able to and, therefore, it is bound to rely on other powers, including South Africa. The Simonstown facilities and the facilities in other ports are essential if those routes are to be maintained open.
We have heard today of the position of France. France is, in many parts of the world, making a commercial, financial and cultural effort of the greatest magnitude. Naturally, France is perfectly entitled to do that; to exert influence in Europe, in the Common Market, in the Middle East following the Israeli-Arab war, in North America, Quebec and in Southern Africa. [Laughter.] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that this is not to be laughed at. They are doing this both for reasons of commerce, particularly gold, and of defence.
The danger of allowing France to become the permanent supplier of arms to South Africa is that, as part of a deal, she will take the facilities in Simonstown, and there will be an attempt to terminate those facilities which Her Majesty's Government use. I have spoken bluntly because this is a matter of the utmost importance and requires plain speaking.
Let us look at the reasons why Her Majesty's Government took this decision in such circumstances as I have described —with which, I think, the First Secretary will not quarrel. He must realise the dangers. The Prime Minister said that this was a question of principle. What is the principle? After all, there was not unanimity in the Cabinet, so at least we are entitled to examine what principle was at stake. Is the principle that we ought to adhere to all United Nations resolutions? This, surely, cannot be the principle which the First Secretary, a former Foreign Secretary, would put forward? The United Nations resolutions of 1963 and 1964 were not mandatory— that is agreed between both sides of the House. They therefore do not bind us.
But our position is perfectly honourable. At the time of both resolutions, the British representative in the United Nations dissociated himself from any embargo on arms for external defence. This was quite clear. It was also logical, because both resolutions were directed to the question of apartheid internally, and


not to questions of South Africa's external defence or position in the South Atlantic. Any British Government are, therefore, entitled not to follow the United Nations resolutions.
If the First Secretary puts forward as a principle that they must all be adhered to, the situation over Gibraltar will become dishonourable and disgraceful. I cannot imagine for one moment that the Government will take that view. They have already described it as disgraceful, and rightly so, and have dissociated themselves from it. So they are fully entitled to dissociate themselves from that part of the resolution of which we gave notice —and, indeed, the whole of it, if they wish. The Conservative position has been consistent throughout. We, when in power, instructed the representative to make that reservation, and we acted on it. That cannot be denied. We have been fully consistent.
What, then, is the next question of principle? Is it that the country should not sell arms to anyone? Some hon. Members below the Gangway have always maintained that. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has maintained it; "merchants of death" is a phrase that is never far from his lips. One can respect that view, but that has not been the position of Her Majesty's Government. As my hon. Friend said, it was this Government who first established a major salesman of arms in this country.
Then, is the principle that we should not sell arms to countries of whose internal affairs the Government disapprove? Let us examine that point. There is the case of Saudi Arabia, in which the sale of arms has been one of the brightest jewels—perhaps the only jewel—in the crown of the Secretary of State for Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] As is well known, he disagrees. Or let us take the case of Portugal. The Government permit the sale of arms to Portugal for external defence. They make no bones about the fact that they disapprove of the internal regimes of both Saudi Arabia and Portugal. So do hon. Members opposite say that there is at stake here any principle that they will not sell arms to any country of whose internal arrangements they disapprove?
Is the principle that of maintaining good relations with the black African

countries? We have heard something of this today. It is said to be essential to the maintenance of good relations that this sale should be denied, but I notice that the French Government supply submarines to South Africa. The Italian Government sell Macchi jet trainers to South Africa. They have excellent relations with the whole of black Africa. They do much trade with those countries north of the Zambesi and, in particular, with Zambia and Nigeria. There can, therefore, be no principle here that in order to maintain good relations this sale of arms ought to be denied.
Then there is the argument which, I think, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) puts forward, that there is to be a race war, that, if so, we must be on the right side, and that this involves stopping this sale of arms. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that everyone in the House has been deeply concerned about apartheid and has found it abhorrent. Many of us have often wondered, and spoken in public— and I did so all through the passage of the South Africa Bill—about how it can be dealt with. I was challenged then by hon. Members opposite on the question of preferences.
I am coming to believe that what the hon. Gentleman and others have been saying no longer corresponds to the facts of the case; and that the black African countries, having achieved their independence, are working more and more with white Africa. I believe that this tendency will continue. They are not thinking any longer in terms of a race war. They are working to bring about change in other ways, and I greatly hope that they succeed in doing so.
Or is it the other principle, that there should be no trade of any kind with South Africa? Perhaps one could respect that view if it were put forward. The Government are not arguing that. South Africa is part of the sterling area, and supplies a great part of the free world's supply of gold. During the course of the South Africa Bill, the then Opposition voted against the retention of preferences for South Africa but, in power, they have maintained them, and benefited from them in their ordinary trade. We draw £57 million a year from South Africa in dividends from over £1,000 million worth


of investments there. The Government gladly take advantage of that.
So whatever hon. Members below the Gangway may wish to do, the Government are prepared to go on, to use their words, supporting an apartheid régime of which they disapprove by a vast amount of trade—South Africa being our third best customer and accounting for 5 per cent, of our trade. One can respect hon. Members opposite if they wish to abolish it all, but for the Government to use a principle of this kind is bogus morality. Therefore, having examined each of these cases, I cannot see any principle on which the Government are acting in turning down this order.
The consequences are very considerable. I do not wish to deal with the constituency matters which my hon. and right hon. Friends have raised. I only say that it is now exactly a month since the £ was devalued. Then we were told that there were measures that it was essential to take to make devaluation work—to gain that great increase in exports. The Chancellor had made his decision 14 days earlier—that makes it six weeks in all. By the time we return from the Christmas Recess two and a half months will have gone by since that decision was taken.
The situation during that time has weakened—no one can deny that. The Government, during this period, have announced nothing—not one solitary, specific measure of all those we were told would be brought about—

Mr. Joel Barnet: rose—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Heath: The only thing the Government have done has been to reject the offer of a firm export order of £200 million.
We have heard that this is a question of principle. Only one principle has ever activated the Prime Minister, and that we have seen demonstrated in the highest possible degree in the last few days. It is the principle of self-preservation at any cost. There were some in the Cabinet who differed from him. I wish they had had the courage to stand up for their views, which they knew to be right. They would have earned the gratitude of the people of the country,

if not of all the party opposite. But they put Cabinet unity and the Prime Minister before patriotism. The Government have taken the wrong decision. They have failed entirely to justify it to the House. It is damaging to our national interest in finance, in trade and in defence, and a Conservative Administration will reverse it.

6.19 p.m.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. Michael Stewart): This debate has been concerned with immediate issues of trade and defence and with facts and figures, and with some of the very greatest issues of world politics and of human affairs. I believe that what we have to do is to see that we set these in the right proportion.
I shall assume throughout my speech —here I shall part company with the last part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition—that everyone who has spoken in this debate, from either side, has done so with sincerity and with a desire to serve his country and mankind. I think that the issue is far too serious to indulge in imputations of unworthy motives which have played too great a part in some of the speeches. I say, therefore, that this is a question of putting in proportion the different issues, the great world issues and the immediate questions of trade and defence.
Let it be noticed that the decision made by this Government about the sale of arms to South Africa was made three years ago. We are not now debating a new decision by the Government. We are debating a proposition by hon. Members opposite that the policy announced three years ago should now be abandoned and one of the reasons given for that is the present economic state of the country.
On the question of a ban on arms, several hon. Members opposite have tried to argue that there is no real difference in morality or principle between trading in arms and trading in anything else. I wonder whether right hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite really hold that view. Are there any of them who say that we ought not to engage in ordinary trade with Communist countries? I do not suppose there are.
Are there any of them who say that we ought to break with our allies about


agreements we have with them restraining the sale not only of arms, but of various kinds of cognate equipment to Communist countries? We all know that this distinction between trade in arms and other trade has been maintained, not only by this Government, but by our predecessors and Governments all over the world. It is well understood, it is a distinction clearly enough drawn, despite occasional borderline cases between general trade and trade in arms. I do not believe, therefore, that the argument can stand up. Certainly, no one opposite who has held responsibility can advance the argument that a ban on arms is in any way the same as an attempt to impose a ban on all trade.
It seems remarkable that the party opposite tries to draw a distinction between arms for internal use and arms for external defence. It is a very tricky distinction to draw, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) in a short but effective speech, made clear, a distinction which will be increasingly more difficult to draw. The Opposition stand on that distinction, but then they try to pretend that the much larger, plainer, more obvious distinction between arms, on the one hand, and general trade, on the other, does not exist.
What are the facts about general trade? The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), who opened the debate, quoted figures of expanding trade with South Africa. So did several other hon. Members, but which side of the argument do they think that leads them to? It has been argued by some that by maintaining our present policy on arms we jeopardise civilian trade with South Africa. Why then, for the last three years, when the ban has been in operation by common consent, has civilian trade gone up and is still going up?

Mr. Hastings: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to explain, or to give some answer to the telegram I read from Sir Maurice Fiennes, about the contract for rolling mill equipment lost as a result of the arms issue?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, I see from one of today's papers that Sir Maurice Fiennes says that the South Africans have given no reason for the postponing of this order. It is purely the hon. Member's

own deduction; he makes that perfectly clear. It is interesting to notice that this allegation has been made by several hon. Members opposite, but there has been not a single piece of evidence from South Africa itself of reactions of this kind. If there were I have no doubt at all that hon. Members opposite would have quoted it. They have not done so. However serious—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stewart: I think not. I have very little time.
It should be clear that there is no real substance in the argument that the whole of our trade with South Africa either is or ought to be jeopardised as a result of this decision taken and operated for the last three years.
We all know that devaluation gives a great opportunity to exporters. I believe that if the goods we can supply to South Africa or anywhere else match or beat our competitors in price, in quality and delivery date, that trade will take place. There is no need, and it would be most imprudent to go out of our way to try, to purchase an additional advantage by abandoning a decision taken three years ago for solid reasons, which I shall develop further, when the House —

Mr. Wyatt: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Stewart: No. There is only limited time for this debate. I have deliberately not asked for very much, but I need what I have.
There were arguments on finance. One thing we should make quite clear. This decision is in no sense in breach of the Simonstown Agreement. The Leader of the Opposition spoke of renegotiation of the Agreement. He was not quite correct about that. There has been no renegotiation of the Agreement. Although there were talks at the time of the removal of the C-in-C and the episode of the frigates, the Agreement has not been renegotiated. It is an Agreement which cannot be denounced legally unilaterally by either side, although either side can ask for renegotiation of it.
Is it suggested that because of something we did three years ago—and the


talks which the right hon. Gentleman described as renegotiation occurred after that and South Africa entered into those consultations knowing this was our declared policy which we were carrying out —that we should now be told that because we refuse to reverse this policy at the request of the Opposition, South Africa will denounce the Simonstown Agreement? If hon. Members opposite assert that, again they have not a scrap of evidence for it. There has not been a single reliable source for that assumption. We are told that we are insulting South Africa. Is the proposition seriously made by hon. Members opposite that South Africa proposes unilaterally to denounce this Agreement?

Mr. Ian Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No I am not giving way.
If that charge were true we should be obliged to ask, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked some time ago, what reliance could be placed on this Agreement. If we are to be told that unless our attitude towards United Nations resolutions is satisfactory in South African eyes then we are to lose trade with them—the Simonstown Agreement would go—how far could this line of argument be pressed? If it were urged by hon. Members opposite that their own somewhat unreal distinction between internal and external arms—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon.
Gentleman—

Mr. Stewart: No.
If it were suggested—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No.
If it were suggested to right hon. Gentlemen opposite that their own fine distinction between internal and external arms was no longer pleasing to the Government of South Africa, and if they did not agree to abandon it the Simonstown Agreement would go or our trade would be jeopardised, would they throw away a distinction on this narrow point of principle on which they alone stand? I counsel the House to consider—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No, I am not giving way.
It is urged that we should, for immediate reasons of trade or of defence, abandon the policy we have adopted. I counsel to the House the danger of accepting this line of argument: first, because it is not a line of argument that comes from the South African Government themselves, and, secondly, if there were substance in it, it is a line of argument that could in the end oblige this Government, on every matter and on every posture in the United Nations or any international forum, to take the South African line.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The right hon. Gentleman is not being fair.

Mr. Stewart: That would not be wise or prudent.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) must contain himself.

Mr. Stewart: I turn, then, to the question of the United Nations Resolutions. Rather unrealistically, the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether it is the Government's position that we would always comply with any U.N. resolution. He knows perfectly well that the answer to that is, "No". A comparison was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) with Gibraltar. There has been no resolution of the Security Council on Gibraltar and, if on any occasion, there came before the Security Council a resolution on Gibraltar which we did not think right, we could and would, by our power as a permanent member, prevent it from passing. What we would not do is to vote for it first and then produce reasons for not complying with it afterwards.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No, I shall not give way.
What, then, ought to be one's attitude to a United Nations resolution? It is not mandatory, but it is right for a great Power, particularly one with our history of dealings with the coloured section of mankind, to give the most careful consideration to the expressed opinions in a


world forum on one of the greatest of world issues—relations between the white and coloured races.
It is on this point that in my judgment hon. Members opposite have failed to get the issue into proportion and have completely under-estimated how great, how terrible, and, if things go ill, how deadly, an issue this could be. This is why this kind of resolution gets passed at the United Nations. It is perfectly true there are many tyrannies in the world, and it is difficult for any libertarian Government, of whatever complexion within the libertarian range, to know exactly how they should behave on each particular issue towards the many tyrannies of the world. Anyone can produce the trick questions on this. However, although I would hesitate to judge whether tyrannies based on race are more or less wicked than other tyrannies, at the present time in the history of the world they are infinitely more dangerous.
I hold that view for this reason. For two centuries at least the white section of mankind treated the coloured section as instruments for white purposes, sometimes treating them kindly, sometimes treating them cruelly, but always for purposes designed by white nations. It is not forgotten. In this century, in two world wars, we have picked up men from Africa and Asia, brought them halfway across the world, given them infinitely more opportunity of gaining knowledge of what the rest of the world is like than they had ever had before, and trained and equipped them to fight in wars which sprang from white men's quarrels. After all that, we could not expect the world to be the same again. That is why the whole question ferments so intensely.
What we have now to work for is reconciliation. That has been the effort of this Government, and very difficult it sometimes is. One has the experience— I see an hon. Gentleman laughing, but this is quite true—when searching for reconciliation that sometimes one's best endeavours are met with coldness or hostility. I say that we and the other nations of the world which lorded it in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries

must accept this as part of the making of a new world. We must go on with the job, difficult as it is, of reconciliation. In that task of reconciliation one's attitude towards apartheid is crucial, because, although in our colonial rule we have often said that for the time being coloured men are not fit to take part in the government of the country, we could always claim that this was to be a matter of time.

The peculiar nature of apartheid is this. It says, first, that white and black must live separately. It says, secondly, that that question—I am putting the case as moderately as possible—of whether they should live separately or not, the greatest question in the whole structure of a state like South Africa, is to be decided exclusively and permanently by white people alone. It is that permanence, that inevitable shutting of the door, that makes it different from all the restrictions or limitations of liberty that have been placed on coloured people before.

At the end of the road of that policy— it may be a road we can travel for a time, but at the end of it lies disaster. I have tried not to use the word "morality". I appeal to the House only for wisdom, for it to realise that to make the wrong decision here would be a disaster to this country far outweighing any immediate economic difficulties.

It has been said—this was one of the less worthy parts of the debate—that the decision was reached to placate certain of my hon. Friends. It has been my task from time to time, as it is the task of all Ministers, to disagree very vigorously with some of my hon. Friends, and I would not hesitate to do that again if I thought that the policy was right. I believe that that is for a Minister to do, but I believe with all my strength that on every issue—morality, ultimate wisdom, and the truest expediency in the long run for this country—our policy was right three years ago and is right now.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn: —

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 331.

Division No. 25.
AYES
[6.39 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
atkins, Humphery(M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Balniel, Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Astor, John
Baker, W.H.K.
Batsford, Brian




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Bell, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Hail-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Nott, John


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Biggs-Davison, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Boardman, Tom
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hay, John
Peel, John


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Braine, Bernard
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Peyton, John


Brewis, John
Heseltine, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J, Enoch


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Buck, Anthony (Colchester)
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Campbell, Gordon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Iremonger, T, L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Channon, H. P. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Clark, Henry
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clegg, Walter
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cooke, Robert
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Royle, Anthony


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cordle, John
Kerby, Capt. Henry
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Sharpies, Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Kirk, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Crouch, David
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Crowder, F. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stodart, Anthony


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Dance, James
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfieid
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Aiec
Longden, Gilbert
Teeling, Sir William


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, W. H.
Temple, John M.


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Tilney, John


Emery, Peter
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Errington, Sir Eric
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
McMaster, Stanley
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Farr, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Webster, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Worsley, Marcus


Gower, Raymond
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wright, Esmond


Grant, Anthony
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wylie, N. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar



Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More




NOES


Abse, Leo
Alldritt, Walter
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)


Albu, Austen
Anderson, Donald
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Archer, Peter
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice







Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lipton, Marcus


Barnett Joel
Ford, Ben
Lomas, Kenneth


Baxter, William
Forrester, John
Loughlin, Charles


Beaney, Alan
Fowler, Gerry
Lubbock, Eric


Bence, Cyril
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Binns, John
Gardner, Tony
MacColl, James


Bishop, E. S.
Garrett, W. E.
MacDermot, Niall


Blackburn, F.
Ginsburg, David
Macdonald, A. H.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McGuire, Michael


Booth, Albert
Gourlay, Harry
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Boston, Terence
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Boyden, James
Gregory, Arnold
Mackie, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mackintosh, John P.


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Brooks, Edwin
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Brown, R. w. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mason, Roy


Cant, R. B.
Haseldine, Norman
Maxwell, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Roy
Mayhew, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hazell, Bert
Mellish, Robert


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mendelson, J. J.


Coe, Denis
Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian


Coleman, Donald
Henig, Stanley
Millan, Bruce


Concannon, J. D.
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Conlan, Bernard
Hilton, W. S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooley, Frank
Molloy, William


Cronin, John
Horner, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tarn
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Howie, W.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hoy, James
Murray, Albert


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Neal, Harold


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Newens, Stan


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E-)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oakes, Gordon


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hynd, John
Oram, Albert E.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley


Dell, Edmund
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dempsey, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Dewar, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Padley, Walter


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Dickens, James
Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H,b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Dobson, Ray
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pardoe, John


Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Park, Trevor


Dunnett, Jack
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parker. John (Dagenham)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Edelman, Maurice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Ellis, John
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


English, Michael
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Ensor, David
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Faulds, Andrew
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Randall, Harry


Fernyhough, E.
Lee, John (Reading)
Rankin, John


Finch, Harold
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Foley, Maurice
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor







Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Whitaker, Ben


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Stonehouse, John
White, Mrs. Eirene


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Whitlock, William


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wilkins, W. A.


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Swain, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roebuck, Roy
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rose, Paul
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rose, Rt. Hn. William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Rowlands, E, (Cardiff, N.)
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ryan, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)
Tinn, james
Wilson, William (Coventry, s.)


Sheldon, Robert
Tommy, Frank
Winnick, David


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Tuck, Raphael
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Urwin, T. W.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Yates, Victor


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wallace, George



Skeffington, Arthur
Watkins, David (Consett)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Small, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Mr. Eric G. Varley and Mr. Neil McBride.


Snow, Julian
Weitzman, David



Spriggs, Leslie
Wellbeloved, James

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE


House to meet on Thursday at Eleven o'clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'clock; and at Five o'clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Crossman.]

ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)

Motion made and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday, do adjourn till Wednesday 17th January.— [Mr. Crossman.]

6.52 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be allowed, in view of the circumstances, to move a manuscript Amendment at some time during the debate?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating to me yesterday, during the course of questions on the Business Statement by the Leader of the House, that he might wish to move a manuscript Amendment, which would substitute another date for that on which it is proposed that the House should reassemble. I am prepared to accept that manuscript Amendment. Indeed, it might clear the air if the hon. Gentleman moved it now.

Mr. Hamilton: If I moved it formally now, Mr. Speaker, would that be in order?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman may move it when he makes his speech.

6.53 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: Very often when we debate when and for how long the House should rise for a Recess it is a formal matter. Hon. Members make speeches—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please adjourn quietly?

Sir D. Glover: Hon. Members make speeches rather on party lines, but I hope that the Leader of the House will believe that I am very serious in what I say.
After devaluation, and the Prime Minister's threats about the sacrifices the country may have to make, it is an excessive adjournment for us to rise until 17th January. Nothing is more conducive to the lack of confidence which one sees in the exchanges, because people are waiting day after day for an announcement from the Government on their measures ':o deal with devaluation.
Every day that passes that lack of confidence in the Government's grip on our affairs gains more ground here and over-

seas. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that an announcement of the deflationary measures would not be made before the House reassembled. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said a few minutes ago, it is six weeks since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's decision to devalue was taken. By the time the House reassembles 2½ months will have passed since then, and still the nation and the world do not know what steps the Government will take to deal with the problem. The Government have already been fairly lax in not making announcements long before now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the Motion. He is wandering off it at the moment.

Sir D. Glover: I was addressing my remarks to the Motion in saying that it would not have been necessary for me to speak if the Government had taken the action which they should have taken before now. They have said that we are to get no announcement about the restrictions on our economy before the House reassembles on 17th January. That is too long for the health of our society, the economy, our people and—far more important—for the buttressing of confidence in our economy in the overseas exchanges. Nobody knows what the Government will do.
From reading the newspapers, I have the impression that the foreign exchanges are very suspicious about whether the decisions will be those that are expected overseas, whether they will be sufficiently severe to transfer enough of our resources into exports, and whether the Government's measures will do the trick of getting us out of the straitjacket about which the Prime Minister talked in his celebrated television broadcast.
Therefore, it is wrong that we should go away for a Recess anything like as long as from 21st December to 17th January. I accept that to some extent the Leader of the House has reduced my argument, in that we are to reassemble on 17th and not 22nd January. That is five days' improvement. But if the Government have the will to produce the right measures the decisions should be made by the Cabinet long before we rise for Christmas. If they are resolute, it


should be possible for the Government to make the announcements very early in January, if not before. But they are not resolute, and that is what creates the lack of confidence.
We should not accept the Motion as it is, because the House should reassemble, if only for 24 hours, for the Government to make their statement. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been carried into a state of euphoria in the past two days to accept all the Government's decisions. According to the Prime Minister, many of those decisions will be bitter pills for them to swallow, and before making too many speeches in their constituencies in the Recess they should know what they are.
Industry wants to know the decisions at the earliest possible opportunity. All the commercial activities of this country are now being stultified because no decision has been reached, and the foreign exchanges are worried stiff. There is no question of party bias about this: the House would be right to reject the Motion and ask the Leader of the House to move another asking us to reassemble very early in January, when the Government would announce their measures. Until they are announced, nobody can make firm decisions, nobody can plan. The party opposite is supposed to be the party of planners and, therefore, should understand this.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: The hon. Gentleman is presenting a most interesting argument. Do I take it that he is opposed to the suggestion by a group of businessmen that Parliament should be sent away for six months?

Sir D. Glover: I do not think that that was a very helpful interjection.

Mr. Roebuck: It was not intended to be.

Sir D. Glover: It was rather foolish.
Parliament should meet much earlier, and I say that with great sincerity. I do not care what those businessmen say, but the fact that we are not coming back until 17th January reinforces their view that Parliament is not seized of anything like the seriousness of the problem that now confronts them because no firm decisions have been taken by the Gov-

ernment since devaluation. It is for that reason that this Motion should be rejected.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, to leave out "Wednesday, 17th January" and to insert "Monday, 8th January".
I had occasion to move an Amendment on the Summer Recess Motion designed with the same end in mind, namely, to cut Parliamentary Recesses— not Parliamentary holidays, but the time we spend away from this Chamber. My reasons tonight are similar to those I then adduced, that the House must increase its control over the Executive and that the more time we spend away from this place the less is the control that we exert.
It has always seemed to me that we have so much to do in this place and so little time in which to do it. We are always under pressure, or the Leader of the House gets up on Thursday and says the pressure is so great that he cannot allow a debate on this or that or the other subject, which might be a purely party matter or something transcending a party matter or might be a matter of purely personal interest to a minority of hon. Members.
At this time, it is singularly inappropriate for the House to urge everyone else to increase productivity, to work harder, even to come here on a Saturday morning—I would not go as far as that —and then to presume to go away ourselves for a month. It seems tantamount to saying, "Do not do as we do, but do as we say". I find this extremely hard to bear.
There can be no doubt that we could use the extra time very profitably between 8th January and 17th January. It would give us seven additional sitting days and there is no shortage of topics for debate. No doubt in this debate various hon. Members will make their own suggestions. I want to make one or two in general terms rather than in the specific terms the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) mentioned.
We set up last Session two Specialist Committees—the Select Committee on Science and Technology and the Select Committee on Agriculture. The first


produced a voluminous Report on the nuclear power station programme and the latter a Report on agriculture and the impact on it of entry into the Common Market. That might not be as urgent now as it was at the time it was produced, but, certainly, the Report of the Science and Technology Committee is of very great and topical importance in view of the state of flux in the Government's fuel policy.
Incidentally, we have had no debate on the White Paper on Fuel Policy, although it has been made clear, in statements and in answers to Questions, that the Government have no intention of revising that White Paper. So, in effect, we have a White Paper on which the Government's fuel policy up to 1975 and perhaps to 1980 is to be based and we are not to have an opportunity, apparently, of debating it and its implications.
The usefulness of these Committees is impaired if we cannot find the time to debate their Reports. The whole point of setting them up was not only that they should make available to the House evidence and information which would not otherwise be available, but that their Reports should be debated on the Floor of the House.
There is also the case of the Estimates Committee, my own Committee. We now have the Departmental replies to two Reports, again very important, one on industrial training, which could not be more topical, and the other on the British space programme. We are also awaiting a Departmental reply on our Report on the situation of our prisons in the whole of the United Kingdom. In addition to these Reports, which should be debated, we have the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Each Report from each of these Committees is of vital importance to the future economy of the country.
At the moment, we devote three days each session to reports from the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. We are supposed also to devote three days to Reports from the Committee on Nationalised Industries, although in very few Sessions do we get those three days. So this is an additional reason for having the extra seven days suggested in the Amendment.
We have had today a debate on arms for South Africa. The decision of the House, which I believe was right, is bound to have an impact on the hodesian situation and, therefore, it becomes of increasing importance that there should be a debate on Rhodesia.
Not least important, as the hon. Member suggested, we had from the Prime Minister yesterday what I would call naked threats of across-the-board cuts in public expenditure. It is interesting that no overall figure was given. I tried to ask my right hon. Friend a specific question yesterday: what overall figure did he have in mind? He might not have a figure in mind at all, however, because he said:
… it will mean reductions in the growth of personal expenditure and reductions in the growth of public expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1967; Vol. 756, c. 922.]
So it may well mean that there is still to be growth of public expenditure and I hope that this is so. I hope that my right hon. Friend meant that it is growth that will be reduced and that there will not be an overall reduction; but we do not know.
My right hon. Friend went on to say that nothing was sacrosanct. We do not know whether prescription charges, the raising of the school-leaving age, the education and hospital building programmes, housing and the roads programme will be exempt or not. We do not know whether any or all will be included.
This kind of filthy-looking evil-smelling pig in a poke is not the kind of present one should give the House at this season. I cannot accept it and I do not think that the House should accept that kind of thing without debate. The House should be given the opportunity of a very wide-ranging debate on our own particular sacred cows and our own plans for the slaughter. It might be found that some people's sacred cows were other people's lambs ready for the slaughter. I dare say that my own would differ from those of hon. Members opposite. I think that there is a great case for the slaughter of the F111.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has slipped over the border. He must keep his lambs and cows to himself.

Mr. Hamilton: I will slip back very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I was about to give examples of the kind of subject which should be debated and which could be debated if the Amendment were accepted and we had an additional seven days.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will recall that we had a similar debate on 25th July when he indicated that he was giving a good deal of thought to the division of our time over the year and when he said that in his view it would be better if we had short sharp Sessions and that the House tended to get jaded if we went on too long. I agree, but I should like to know what is in his mind and what progress has been made in his thinking in this respect. That is one of the reasons why I have moved the Amendment.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): That was dealt with in our procedural debate and the Select Committee on Procedure has now been asked to make a report on the subject.

Mr. Hamilton: I am much obliged, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will not leave it there but will give us the benefit of his personal view, because very often his personal views are far in advance of the views of his colleagues both inside and outside the Cabinet.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough): I have three reasons for suggesting that we should come back from the Recess far earlier than the Motion suggests. My three compelling reasons all have one common denominator which amounts to a lack of decision, a lack of direction and a lack of good government. Under those three headings there are a multitude of reasons why we should return earlier, but I will give three specifically.
The first is that urgent consideration should be given to the announcement from Brussels tonight about our Common Market negotiations which are of the most critical and urgent importance to this country. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), this is not some Parliamentary Specialist Committee which is reporting, but a Committee of the Common Market nations which, meeting in Brussels today, has formally rejected the

application put in by a united House of Commons to join Europe. This is a matter which should be considered at the earliest opportunity. We have to decide where we are to go from here, what we are to do, whether we are to continue to hammer our heads against a brick wall, or formulate an alternative policy instead. This is not something to be shovelled under the carpet for a month or five weeks.
My second reason is in connection with the situation of our balance of payments. This is in a terrible state. The crude trade figures for last month alone showed a startling increase over the loss in the previous month to a record level, This, too, is something which the House should consider at the earliest opportunity. Hon. Members on either side may have useful suggestions about what should be done, but we should not all go off on holiday and do nothing.
It may be suggested, for instance, that import levies and export incentives should be increased or improved in some way, but that something has to be done to correct this terrible situation is certain. It is no use the House going away on holiday and enjoying a happy Christmas—

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster): And a prosperous New Year.

Mr. Farr: —and a prosperous New Year, thinking that devaluation alone will do the trick, because it will not. It is just one measure and it will not work unless it is followed by other sensible and forthright action and planning which should be decided straight away.
I have a rather more personal interest in my third reason than in the other two. It is the tragic and serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which is ravaging the countryside. Two or three weeks ago we had a very useful debate, an interim debate, so to speak, from which great value was obtained throughout the country. For instance, it was drawn to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture that certain parties of people had access to the countryside and could spread the disease and, as a result of that information, the Minister rightly acted to stop such access.
In the intervening period since that debate the situation has not improved.


It is now very serious. Another 10,000 animals were slaughtered today and on average 10,000 a day have been slaughtered since the last debate. While I admire the Minister of Agriculture as a forthright and well-meaning man, I am not satisfied that he has the situation adequately under control. What happens if, in a week or even less, we find that, once again, the number of outbreaks starts to increase from its present 20 or 30 daily outbreaks to 60 or 70 or 80? If the House is not sitting, there is nothing we can do. I am not satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture is quite the person to act with the necessary immediate energy and decision to do something emphatic to stop what could be a runaway outbreak with a general incidence of the disease throughout the country.
Those are three subjects which I regard with the utmost seriousness and which the House should discuss at the earliest possible date. There are others. In common with other hon. Members, I shall do my best to enjoy my Christmas, but it will be clouded by the realisation that the House does not intend to return for another month to discuss the extremely important and urgent matters which I have mentioned.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: I want to ask the Leader of die House, who is not present, one or two questions about the war in Vietnam. If there is to be any change or escalation of that war the House should certainly be recalled. Unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity of a debate on Vietnam and many of us are deeply concerned that the Americans intend to stop the bombing of North Vietnam for only two or three days. I would have Hoped that before we rise there would have been an opportunity for proper debate. I look forward to the debate on Vietnam when the House resumes, and when I hope to be able to contribute to that debate.
I would like to ask the Government to give some assurance that if there is to be any change or escalation in the war the House will be recalled. Can the Leader of the House say whether Her Majesty's Government are putting any pressure upon the Americans to prolong the bombing pause?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into merits now.

Mr. Winnick: I accept that, Mr. Speaker.
One of the reasons why I would have hoped for a debate before the Christmas Recess is that we would have been able to have pointed out that if the Americans had not resumed the bombing of North Vietnam earlier this year the war could possibly have ended through negotiations. This is why many of us are so desperately worried that the Americans will stop the bombing for only two or three days and once again, throughout 1968, there will be this bloody war, without any pause.
There is a danger that the Americans intend to invade North Vietnam and, again, I would like some assurance that Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the American Government, expressing great fears that exist in this country about further escalation. I recognise that it is not possible to debate the Vietnam war [Interruption.] I am sorry if some hon. Members opposite seem to consider this amusing. I do not consider the Vietnam war to be amusing at all.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): The hon. Gentleman should not take himself so seriously. I was merely reflecting with some gratification upon the fact that it had at least sunk into the hon. Gentleman's head that he could not debate the Vietnam war on this occasion.

Mr. Winnick: I do take the Vietnam war very seriously indeed, and I make no apologies for doing so.
It would be quite wrong for us to rise for the Recess without the clear knowledge that the House would be recalled should the war escalate. This is vital. Secondly, we want an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are putting pressure on the Americans not just to stop their terror bombing of North Vietnam for two or three days, but that they should have a permanent bombing cessation which will bring about negotiations to end this shocking and horrifying war.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): I, too, wish to argue the case that the House should return earlier than is proposed in


the Motion or Amendment, but I do not particularly wish to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), in his obsession with Vietnam, to the exclusion of many other matters which are of greater importance and relevance to my constituents, and, I dare say, to his.

Mr. Winnick: rose—

Mr. Onslow: Let us finish with Vietnam.

Mr. Winnick: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is most unfair to suggest, or to imply, that because I am deeply concerned with Vietnam, I am not concerned with my constituents' problems. I wish that he would withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Gentleman would listen with greater care to what others say in the Chamber and not only to what he himself says, he would realise that I said that there are other matters of greater interest to his constituents and mine. Not everyone is obsessed with Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate, either irregularly or regularly, the relative merits of those subjects that hon. Gentlemen wish to debate if we come back earlier.

Mr. Onslow: I merely wish to suggest that among the subjects which might occupy the House and which would, parenthetically, interest my constituents, would be the future of the aircraft industry. We have just had a very important decision announced in the normal way, that is, by means of a Written Answer to a planted Question on a Friday, that the industry is not to be taken over by the Government.
This is some recognition of reality by the Government. It is a recognition that ownership of the industry is less important than whether the industry can make and sell aeroplanes. The crucial issue which now arises in the immediate context of this little item of certainty in an uncertain world is that the industry must know where it is to get the money to fund its activities and what profit it will get from those activities. Those are decisions which the House should not allow the Government to defer until 17th

January or some uncertain date thereafter.
A second subject which is of great interest to the House, and again parenthetically, to my constituents, is the bureaucratic dropsy with which the nation is now afflicted—the swollen ranks of the Civil Service, 52,000 more in the last three years at an additional cost of £115 million a year. These are places where the axe must be sharpened and ought to fall before 17th January, or an indeterminate date thereafter. Those are two particular points, but I should also like to add a general point which fits in well with what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I do not believe that at this point in our history and, especially the history of Parliament, we should let this Government out of our sight for a minute longer than is necessary.
If it were possible to personalise the Cabinet, which, happily, it is not, if any such person existed and had behaved in the way that the Cabinet has behaved for these last three years, he would by now have been required to surrender his passport and report to the nearest police station twice a day. Unfortunately, we cannot make the Cabinet do this, but there is an alternative open to us, which is to force the Cabinet to report to this House four days a week. We cannot prevent it from doing a Sidney Stanley. We can insist that it should come back here and account to us constantly as of, to pull a date out of the air, 27th December, for its actions. We shall then be seen to be able to exercise control over the Government in the name of the people.

Mr. John Smith: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that there is a risk that the Cabinet may not come back at all?

Mr. Onslow: What a happy new year that would be! If there is to be anyone in control of our affairs in the new year the Cabinet should be here, and we should be here, able to question them.
The argument of inconvenience is always put forward by the Leader of the House who, strangely, is again absent. He says that this would be a great inconvenience to private Members. He is always so solicitous about private Members. In the summer, he says, "Off to the seaside. You ought to be there with


your wife and children, on the sands." This time, no doubt, he is saying, "You ought to be skiing". Who can afford to ski? "You ought to be going to the races". There is no racing. "You ought to be occupied in some beneficial way". We want to be occupied here. This is what we are for, to serve the country in this House of Commons.— [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like a General Election we know who would not be coming back.
The argument of convenience is always an argument on the Government side. The House will be prepared to accept considerable personal inconvenience to ordinary private Members if thus we were able to get this Government to return early and answer fairly. If we are forced to accept the Motion, I can only say to the Cabinet that I hope it will eat, drink, and be merry, because when the new year comes there is going to be a reckoning.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig (Lancaster): I rise to give support to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who has moved the Amendment, because I, too, am concerned that Parliament so frequently finds no time to discuss affairs in which various hon. Members have expressed an interest. I wish to give a number of reasons why there is a strong case to be made for the House returning earlier from the Christmas Recess. There are a number of things which we ought already to have discussed, but because of the pressure of recent weeks and months it has not been possible so to do.
Some hon. Members will find a little obscure the first matter which I think should be discussed. I refer to one of our last remaining Colonies, British Honduras. I do not believe that there has been a debate on British Honduras in the House for a long time. Yet when I recently had the privilege, with other hon. Members, of being a member of a Parliamentary delegation to British Honduras, I found acute concern over the future of this colony being discussed in secret negotiations between Britain, United States and Guatemala.
The people in this Colony said that they wanted no power over their future given to Guatemala. They urged us to

put forward their point of view when we returned to England. I said to them that although, not being a member of the Government, I was in no position to give pledges—[Laughter.]—when the House of Commons debated their future and independence and any treaty which might be made by the Government with Guatemala, I would personally ensure that the point of view of the 100,000 British citizens there would not go unheard. I appreciate that some hon. Members opposite think that British Honduras, being a long way away, is a subject for laughter, but when the future of 100,000 British citizens is at stake it would be very wrong if the House of Commons did not have a chance to debate the matter and to give its opinion before any irrevocable decision was made.

Mr. J. Bruce-Car dyne: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that we were laughing not at the proposition which he put forward but simply at the fact that he appeared to imagine that even members of the Government could give pledges which would impress anybody at home or abroad.

Mr. Henig: This is too serious a matter to indulge in this kind of frippery. This issue is important because British colonial subjects are directly subject to decisions made in this House, and if we do not debate British Honduras before it is too late it will be a great disgrace and scandal.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in his absence— [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—to give an assure that the Government will not enter into any irrevocable undertakings concerning British Honduras before the House has been consulted and that, if necessary, we will be recalled earlier to give our opinions.

Mr. Farr: In view of the urgency and gravity with which the hon. Gentleman obviously regards the situation in British Honduras, would he tell us whether he has asked Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to raise the issue during an Adjournment debate?

Mr. Henig: I am not sure that I have to answer that question, but I have not asked Mr. Speaker for an Adjournment debate because I do not wish to discuss the situation until I am sure that the


Government have some proposals to make and wants to discuss the matter with the House in the spirit of giving and listening to ideas. Therefore, I hold my horses. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything in my power to make certain that this issue comes to the Floor of the House.
I come to the second reason why I think it most important that we should return earlier. I support, strangely enough, the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fair), who said that the House should return, earlier to debate today's events in Brussels. I am less well-informed than he is about what has happened and the nature of the decision, but no doubt he has his own private carrier pigeon. However, it could be said that things have happened today which profoundly affect the decision which the House took with such an overwhelming majority some months ago that Britain should enter the Common Market.
If something happens to thwart an intention clearly expressed by the House, we should be able to debate the new situation before the Government decide on a fresh course of action. At some point, the Government may very well feel that a fresh course of action should be taken. They may feel that a middle way is better than nothing at all and that some kind of association might be the answer; I do not know. I do not wish to overstep the limits of this debate, but I feel that before the Government say, "Since it has been all or nothing, and the French have said ' Nothing', therefore it is nothing", I and I believe other hon. Members would like a chance to say how we feel in the light of the new circumstances.
The third reason why other hon. Members and myself think that there is a case for our returning earlier, or, if we do not return earlier, for receiving an assurance that irrevocable and irreversible decisions will not be taken before we return is this. It applies to the cuts in a variety of items of expenditure referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. No one doubts the urgency of the situation. I do not believe that I could say to the Government Front Bench, "Do not do anything about this until after 17th January because we will be here then and will think with you",

but if they wish to think about the matter beforehand and to make decisions we should be consulted. They will find that there is a lively division of opinion between hon. Members opposite and we on these benches and that it would be useful to them to know, for example, that there is an overwhelming feeling on the Government back benches that, if there is a choice, it is the F111 and other projects which must go—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting out of order.

Mr. Henig: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was indicating what the Government might discover if they allowed a debate on these matters.
In conclusion, I would say this to my absent right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he? "] My right hon. Friend is also entitled to go for a cup of tea. I do not hold that against him, although hon. Members opposite seem to do so. They take a rather churlish attitude to this matter. The message will reach him that some of us on this side of the House are most anxious that we should have a chance to express our opinion on a large number of important matters which will happen in the immediate future. Since no one could possibly argue that their urgency is such that they should be deferred until we return, the only practical solution seems to be that the House should return a few days earlier and I have no doubt, from our frequent sessions with the Leader of the House on Thursday afternoons, that there will be no shortage of business to conduct if we do that.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie (Edinburgh, Pent-lands): I should like to adduce as briefly as possible a further reason why the House should resume rather earlier than is proposed. I wish to draw attention to what I regard as a very serious social as well as criminal problem in Scotland, namely, crimes of violence. I had better make it clear at the outset that I have at no time suggested that this matter should be debated, and that I am referring to it now because only a few days ago I received a letter from the Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a letter which I had written about two months before, saying that he was unable to accede to my proposal to amend the law


relating to the possession of offensive weapons.
This is a tremendous problem in Scotland. Only yesterday I read that one of the judges of the High Court in Glasgow made specific reference to the tragedies which follow the widespread habit among young people, in particular, of carrying offensive weapons. The Scottish criminal statistics for last year are quite shocking. I hope that I am in order in referring to them briefly, to illustrate the gravity of the problem. Last year, the number of persons proceeded against for murder was exactly twice the number in 1965. When we get the criminal statistics for 1967—and unfortunately, for some reason, they never appear to be avail able until about August of the following year—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member is tempting himself to debate the issue which he wants the House to debate if we come back earlier.

Mr. Wylie: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
I am merely trying to underline the gravity of the problem in Scotland and the reason why it should be discussed at length now, because, unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Scotland appears to be the only person in Scotland who does not appreciate the gravity of the problem. It has been said by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that even if the right hon. Gentleman approved of legislation in this direction he could not give any indication of when the time would be made available.
I would like to see the House resume earlier so that Scottish hon. Members, on both sides—this is certainly not a party political matter—could impress upon the Secretary of State the gravity as well as the urgency of the problem.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan): I, too, would like to join in the desire to return to the House a little earlier than is indicated by those in authority, and, of course, by agreement of the House. One of the strange features of this assembly is that once it has taken a firm decision it immediately begins to have second thoughts and thinks that it has acted wrongly and would like to come back a little earlier than it had

previously determined. How much exact truth that represents is always a matter of doubt.
I am very disturbed about happenings in the aircraft industry. They have been reinforced by the reported decision that at Brussels today it has been decided unanimously, I gather, to reject the application by this country to join the Common Market.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member, but it should be made clear that the decision was not unanimous.

Mr. Rankin: The decision has not been announced?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It was not unanimous.

Mr. Rankin: Has the decision been announced?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Yes.

Mr. Rankin: Then I do not know why the hon. Member is interrupting me if what I say is correct. Naturally, it very much disturbs one's thoughts about the future.
The aircraft industry represents employment for 260,000 people in Great Britain. It provides employment particularly for 14,000 people on the engine side of the industry in the area where I live and adjacent to the area which I represent. These are obviously serious matters, because we are seeking to tie ourselves closely to what is called the Common Market in Europe. It affects many productions in the aircraft industry which were made independently by ourselves, providing us with a great income from the aircraft which we produced and from the exports that we earned. That income was very high indeed.
The sales of our aircraft are worth noting. One of them, the Viscount, earned £152 million. Another, the Britannia, earned £27 million —

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot discuss the future of the aircraft industry or the implications of the Common Market decision on the future of the aircraft industry. The hon. Member must link his remarks to the Motion and the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I can, however, say that on the income side, from exports and in direct earnings, the aircraft industry has served the country well. It has also served those who serve it well.
If this attempt to join the Common Market, with which I agree, leaves us stranded in the particularly important world of aircraft research, design and production, we must be careful in our own interests and not do ourselves serious injury by prosecuting a cause which, if what we have heard is true, may do us damage beyond repair.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will rethink the date of return after the Recess. The decision which has been taken is one of tremendous importance for us. It raises the issue in every mind in the House whether we should continue with what would appear to be a fruitless search if, in the course of pursuing it, we render to our own country an injury in employment, exports, national income and the rest, from which it may take a long while to recover.
I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take note of this situation and the dangers that now cluster round it and to give thought to our demand that Parliament should return to consider this matter earlier than it is evidently meant to do.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): I am in sympathy with those hon. Members, on both sides, who feel reluctant to leave the Government out of their sight for even a few days. We have seen, as one has never seen before, the Government like a drowning man clutching for a life raft as they see the Recess approaching.
It is not merely in the House of Commons that there is a lack of trust in the Government. It is outside, as well. The recent by-elections have shown that the vast majority of the electorate equally has no confidence in the ability of the Government to govern properly. Therefore, I am sure that they would welcome our being here much earlier after Christmas than is planned.
In addition, since those by-elections we have now had the decision about arms to South Africa which will have a big

impact on many people. There are many in my constituency who work for Hawker Siddeley and I understand that as a result of the Government's decision on South Africa they will not now get about £40 million worth of orders. Those people will be even more distrustful of the Government. Indeed, they may wonder why the Government appear to think it more important to consider the interests of the United Nations than of the people of this country. I remind right hon. Members opposite that it is the people of this country to whom they have a duty first and foremost and not to the United Nations.
As has been mentioned, the South Africa decision also affects the question of Rhodesia. This is something else which is likely to move to a crunch before we meet again. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware—one would not have thought so from the behaviour of the Commonwealth Secretary recently, when he seemed to go out of his way to make it less likely that he will succeed in any negotiations with Mr. Smith—that the Constitutional Commission will be reporting in the near future. Nobody knows exactly when it will report, but it may be before the House returns on 17th January. When it does report the last opportunity for a negotiated settlement will have passed.
I hope that the Leader of the House and the hon. Member who
tut-tuts so happily on the Front Bench below the Gangway understand that this is the last opportunity for this House to influence events in Rhodesia. However much hon. Members may regret that Rhodesia today is independent and is prepared to move towards a republic, if a negotiated settlement is not reached we shall have no influence upon it whatever. Therefore, before this Constitutional Commission reports there is an opportunity for the Government to come to some terms which will enable this House of Commons to have some influence on the constitution of Rhodesia and its future. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the House will recognise that this is a matter which could well crop up before the House reassembles and, therefore, is something on which we ought to know what the Government is thinking if we are to go away even for a week or so.
In addition, there is the whole question of I he effect of recent decisions since devaluation upon the defence of this country. The right hon. Gentleman from the Government Front Bench wound up on the subject of South Africa without a single thought to its effect upon the defence arrangements of this country: the protection of the route round the Cape, the protection of the Atlantic, and even the Indian Ocean. These are matters which are vitally affected by the Government's decision on South Africa.
We also had a bald statement recently that there was to be £100 million worth of cuts on our defence expenditure. But now we are told by the Prime Minister that there are even more to come, and not just on the home front. The right hon. Gentleman nods his assent.
It is monstrous that in these conditions we should not have had a debate en the whole aspect of defence which is presented by this complete change of policy at a time when the Government, only a matter of weeks ago, were saying that at last we had our obligations and commitments on the one side and our forces and weapons in complete balance on the other. So the position is reached where we know that risks are to be taken which affect the safety of our troops throughout the world, and, indeed, that decisions will be taken which may well affect the ability of the Government to recruit people in the Services.
There comes a point where there is no longer a worthwhile career in the Army, the Air Force, or the Navy. If people begin to think that the Government, under the pressure of the Left wing, will run headlong in the direction of further cuts on equipment and on defence generally, there is a grave danger of the whole question of recruitment collapsing and there being a gradual snowball rundown of the Armed Forces whether the Government wish it or not.
These are most important matters which should have been debated before the House rises for the Christmas Recess. Far more important are they than the Transport Bill, which is to be bulldozed through the House tomorrow while the Government can still keep a grip on their majority. It is to be pushed through the House despite the fact that it has grave implications for our economic future.
I hope that it may yet be possible for the Government to decide that the time has come for them to change the date and allow us to come back and keep a very close eye on what they are doing.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): After the strong demonstration of support which the Government have had today, it seems singularly unconvincing for the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) to suggest that Government support is in any way in question.

Mr. Goodhew: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be convinced, I can do it very easily. The reason is that he and his hon. Friends have been bought off on the subject of South Africa and they will find the price unattractive when they come back.

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for thinking that the pressure which, in a democratic way, we bring to bear on the Government is as effective as he suggests. It is right and proper that it should be, and I hope that he is right.
I have previously suggested to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the consideration which he gives to the timetabling of the House is one which he should extend not only to the question of the day, but to the year. I know that his consideration of suggestions concerning the ordering of our day have not been universally and entirely successful, but he should not be deterred by this. I hope that he will give consideration to the spread of our time over the year.
We are geared to a timetable over the course of the year which is probably in order for the days of an agricultural community travelling by coach and trap from distant constituencies, but that has little relevance to our modern distribution of time and our modern possibilities of travel. Therefore, I think that it would be a good idea if we were to look at our whole year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It might be, but we cannot discuss it on this Motion.

Mr. Jenkins: I was thinking of Wednesday, 17th January, which is the date suggested for our return. I was about to suggest—of course I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that if we


were to come back a little earlier and were to spread necessary breaks over the year in shorter periods of time it would be better than leaving the Government un-surveyed over longer periods. No Government should be totally bereft of the benefit of the advice and help of the House for any long time. If any Government were to be so deprived, I would prefer it to be this one. I would certainly not wish to leave a Government composed of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite unsurveyed for even a moment. However, I do not think that we need fear this, because it is most unlikely that they will ever return to this side of the House.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend that we are returning on 17th January and not, as was originally proposed, at a later date. In consequence, we shall be able to have a day's debate on South-East Asia.

Mr. Crossman: My hon. Friend's congratulations should not be directed to me, but to the mover of the Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Jenkins: If I am incorrectly distributing my congratulations it is because I am of a generous frame of mind, but I am prepared for them to be shared by my right hon. Friend, because I would not want to deprive him of such credit as is due to him for acceding to the proposition.
On our return, we are to have a debate on South-East Asia and I have no doubt that that debate will touch to a large degree on the problem of Vietnam. This might arise during the Recess, because the situation is developing in a manner which is extremely disquieting. The American Government appear to have reached the conclusion that their present policy of a limited war is one which is not going to bring them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot have a debate on the Vietnam war on this Motion.

Mr. Jenkins: I was about to suggest reasons for believing that it might be necessary for the Government to recall the House before 17th January. It seems possible that during the Recess a fundamental change in American policy may

take place, and I am seeking an assurance from my right hon. Friend that, if such a change of policy took place, he would not hesitate to recall the House to deal with it. I was about to suggest, as a reason for keeping the Government alert during the Recess, that if negotiations do not take place, the policy of escalation will be pressed very hard upon the American Government and that that may be the point of time at which the Government should decide to recall the House.
As has been said by other hon. Members, there are further problems which may arise during this time. There is the question of the Common Market, and of decisions of profound importance being taken while we are away. I hope that the House will be recalled if there is any fundamental change in the situation. It has been suggested that the application which the Government decided to make to join the Common Market has been rejected.
This will be a welcome decision to me, but, whatever may be the case about that, there is no doubt that the consequences of such a decision will be of great importance to the future of our country economically, politically, strategically, and in every other way. Some might suggest that some form of association might come about, but I hope that if a change of this kind occurs the Government will not hesitate to recall the House so that it can express its views on this matter.
I am sure that while we are away the Government will not go into hibernation. They will be considering what proposals to bring before the House concerning the cuts which have been referred to—the Prime Minister himself referred to these—which are to be borne by our people collectively during the coming year. There has been some talk about various people's sacred cows. I have no doubt that we all have our sacred cows, but I hope that when the Government are considering these matters, and when they come before the House in the New Year, they will take into consideration the views held by hon. Members on both sides about sacred cows.
If they do, they will find a curious factor. They will find that we on this side of the House are prepared to sacrifice our sacred cows which are overseas,


while hon. Gentlemen opposite want to sacrifice sacred cows at home. I hope that when the Government are considering the matter they will decide that it is the overseas cows, our defence expenditure, which ought to be sacrificed, and not our home ones, our social services, which are precious to us, but apparently not so precious to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Those are some of the reasons why the House should be kept in close touch with the Government during the Recess. I hope that during this time my right hon. Friend will not hesitate to recall the House if the situation should develop in any of the matters which I have referred to, in any of the ways which I have suggested, so that the Government can seek the advice, help, and counsel of the House. I believe that on behalf of all hon. Members I can assure him that we will be happy to return at any time.

8 3 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I have always been somewhat reluctant to intervene in these debates, because it has often seemed to me that hon. Members are inclined to advise a foreshortening of the Recess, but would be very regretful if their advice were accepted. This is not unreasonable, because we have obligations to fufil in our constituencies during the Recess. I am thinking particularly of those who represent Scottish constituencies. When the House is sitting, we cannot be present in our constituencies during the week, and hon. Members may have entered into obligations which they want to fulfil during the Recess.
The suggestion from the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and one or two other hon. Members about short and sharp sessions, and the suggestion that this is the sort of idea which would appeal to the Leader of the House, fills me with alarm, because to allow the right hon. Gentleman to tinker with our arrangements is about as sensible a proceeding as allowing a "hipped-up" 16-year-old to take charge of an "S" type Jaguar. The result is chaos, total and unconfined. I hope that we will not hear too much of these brilliant suggestions being foisted on the right hon. Gentleman who is totally incapable of dealing with them sensibly.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that on this occasion there may be valid reasons for arguing, not that we should decide here and now to return before 17th January, but that under certain circumstances we should be prepared to do so. Various suggestions have already been put forward, and I find myself in agreement with a number of them. In particular, I think that it would be desirable to have the opportunity, which we have not yet had, and which we are not to have before we rise for the Recess, to debate the new situation which has been caused by the entirely predictable rejection of the Government's application for membership of the E.E.C. This is a matter which we should debate at an early opportunity, but, given the way in which the Leader of the House normally handles our affairs I do not see that we shall necessarily have such an opportunity soon after our return.
There are one or two other possibilities which might arise during the Recess, and, if they did, I believe that they should call for the recall of the House. First, I suggest that there is a considerable possibility—I do not put it any higher —that during the Recess we may witness a change in the leadership of the party opposite. During the last few days we have seen an obvious attempt by some right hon. Gentlemen opposite to preempt the decisions which the Prime Minister is naturally incapable of taking himself. The attempt has failed, but I suggest that it is conceivable that these right hon. Gentlemen may draw the conclusion from this experience that there is no way out from our present morass so long as the Prime Minister holds his present job and may, therefore, decide that they should engineer his removal during our absence from the House.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: rose—

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to complete what I am saying, and then I will give way.
Far be it from me to suggest that there would be anything objectionable about the removal of the Prime Minister. I believe that it would be the greatest boon and blessing that could be conferred on this country, but it seems to me that if this happened during the Recess it would be a matter of the utmost importance,


and I am sure that I carry hon. Gentlemen opposite with me when I say that if the Prime Minister gets the hatchet during the Recess, the House should be recalled to discuss the new situation which will arise.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that all of us on this side of the House have no desire to change the leadership on that side.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That was a completely frivolous and irrelevant intervention. There is no prospect whatsoever of that, but the suggestion which I am putting forward is a serious one. I wonder whether I might have the attention of the Leader of the House for a moment. I hope that, when he winds up the debate, he will give an assurance that if there is a change in the leadership of the party opposite the House will be recalled to debate the new situation.
My second point relates to the situation which has already been touched on by one or two hon. Members, and which arises as a consequence of the decision which we debated earlier today. I find it a little difficult to believe that the Treasury and the Bank of England will be able to hold the situation for four weeks in an extremely tense foreign exchange market. Since devaluation we have had one announcement, and one only, from the Government to say that they are forgoing an export order worth £250 million. We have had today an exhibition of conscientious self-indulgence and all that we have had to balance it is a few vague, uncertain promises of penances to come. This will be a very difficult balance for the Treasury and the Bank of England to sustain for four weeks.
There have been various references to sacred cows. I suspect that, if the situation which the Government's conduct over the past week has created is to be controlled, before the four weeks' Recess is up the sacred cows may have to be slaughtered. The Government may have to rush forward proposals for re-imposing prescription charges, postponing the raising of the school leaving age, axing the public sector building programme or a wage freeze. These are the sort of possibilities which the Government may now

be forced to face very quickly if the situation in the international monetary markets deteriorates as rapidly as I fear it may. I have no objection if these sacred cows are slaughtered. It is essential that most should be, but I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree that the House should be recalled to debate the slaughter.
On the other hand, there is a third possibility which I would regard as even more dangerous. That is that, just as the Prime Minister has in the last few days succeeded in imposing a sacrifice of £250 million in export orders as part of a sordid little backstage Cabinet manoeuvre, so, when the decisions have to be taken on the slaughter of the sacred cows, he may treat them in the same way as he has treated the issue of arms for South Africa. This at any rate is a fear which those who observe us from overseas may well have.
There might, for instance, be a decision during the Recess, at the Prime Minister's insistence and with his eye firmly fixed on those hon. Gentlemen be low the Gangway, to concentrate all cuts in Government spending in the field of defence. I was intrigued to see that the Leader of the House nodded with smug satisfaction when someone on this side talked of the threat of cuts in defence. I have long believed—and have made no secret of the fact—that there is a time for retrenchment of Government spending overseas, but it is, of course, ludicrous to think that any cuts, however extreme or severe, in Government spending over seas at this time could operate quickly enough to save the Government from —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Member is now getting out of order. His own views about the situation are not relevant to the debate.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I accept that Ruling completely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was going to say that I fear that the Government will concentrate all the economies which they might announce during the Recess in defence, where they could not possibly operate quickly enough. That might satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite, but there again it is essential that the House should be recalled if this should happen so that we could try


to impress upon the Government—though heaven knows it is an uphill struggle impressing anything upon this Government —that cuts confined to defence could not work under these circumstances. It is urgent and important that, if the Government adopt this course during the Recess, the House should be recalled to enable hon. Members on this side to try to show the Government the folly of their ways.
The fourth possibility which might arise during the Recess concerns the situation in Scotland. We are already faced, as a result of the decision for which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of them from Scottish constituencies, voted earlier today, with the prospect of a rapid rise in unemployment, for instance on the Clyde. This was already forecast yesterday by one of the leading manufacturers in the Clyde shipbuilding industry, and this is the situation which will begin to develop during the Recess.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland put out a circular to local authorities telling them that they must make further economies in their spending programmes. An important point is that he said in this circular that the spending programmes on housing and schools in Scotland would be sacrosanct from any cuts. Of course, the Prime Minister yesterday said precisely the opposite—

Mr. Crossman: Mr. Crossman indicated dissent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Leader of the House shakes his head, but he should read the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's proceedings. The Prime Minister said that no sector, including house building and school building, would be sacrosanct, and he made no geographical distinctions between Scotland and England.
Here again, if cuts in these building programmes in Scotland are to be announced during the Recess, it is essential that the House should be recalled to discuss them as soon as they are announced and, indeed, so that it can pronounce upon them before any decision is taken.
I appreciate that the Leader of the House might find this slightly awkward. I suspect that the worm might turn in die souls of some of his hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies in the face of this kind of proposition, but he has an obligation—especially to those of us from

parts of the country which have suffered particularly severely from Government policies over the last three years—to give us an opportunity to discuss any such decisions about school and house building programmes in Scotland.
Briefly, although I hope that we can go away for four weeks' holiday with a clear conscience, the odds are substantially against it. I was impressed by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), that, if we left the Government for four weeks, they might go away and not come back. That is an attractive suggestion, but, unfortunately, the more likely prospect is that they will get into deeper and deeper mischief while we are away.
If this should happen, it is essential that we should be recalled. I hope that the Leader of the House will give assurances tonight that we will be recalled in the circumstances which I have specified.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Roy Roebuck: I do not accept any of the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) for having a shorter Recess. It is mischievous to suggest that hon. Members do no work in the Recess. It is, in fact, a most valuable time for them to go about their constituencies, to do the reading which they could not do during the Session and to travel abroad and thus to make themselves better informed to debate issues when the House is in session.
However, I feel that the House should not adjourn without a statement from the Government about their attitude towards the crisis in the Press. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has many times over the past week or two resisted attempts to have a debate on this subject, but the situation in the Press is serious and has been made ever more so by last night's announcement by the President of the Board of Trade about the effect of devaluation on newsprint. The announcement was to the effect that the cost of newsprint would be increased by £7 a ton. I should like to know what assessment the Government have made of the effect of that on the Press before we adjourn. Is it expected that the whole


of this sum will be absorbed? Many newspapers are, financially, on the borderline. Have the Government had any discussions with newspaper interests? Is it possible that the price of newspapers will go up? This is an extremely serious matter, particularly since, if it has not been properly considered, some newspapers may got out of existence before we resume after the Recess.
Another reason why it would be inadvisable for us to adjourn—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House has already agreed to adjourn on Thursday. We are discussing on what day we should resume.

Mr. Roebuck: I regret expressing myself imprecisely. I was not suggesting that the House should not adjourn on Thursday but that we should resume a little earlier to debate this matter; that is, unless my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can make a statement on this topic before we adjourn.
An important decision has been taken today about the Common Market. It would appear that we will have no opportunity to debate this important decision before we adjourn, and unless—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot give reasons why we should not adjourn. The House has agreed to adjourn on Thursday. He may discuss only the date when the Recess should end.

Mr. Roebuck: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I had been allowed to complete my sentence, I would have said that, unless my right hon. Friend makes a statement on this issue, we may need to return earlier to discuss it. This may not be necessary if the Leader of the House is prepared to make a statement on the matter and to say, for example, for how long our application to join will lie on the table. He might also say whether any further thought has been given, since Question Time today, to the possibility of summoning a meeting of Commonwealth trade Ministers with the object of boosting trade with the Commonwealth as an alternative to our joining the Common Market.
Another reason why we should return earlier is to get an answer from my right

hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works about how much it is costing the nation to maintain my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in a residence in Brussels. Several attempts have been made to elicit this information, but unfortunately it has not been forthcoming.
Perhaps the Leader of the House will give a positive assurance that if it should happen that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is deposed before we come back, he will, before recalling Parliament, declare a national day of mourning on behalf of members of the Labour Party.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart): The Leader of the House may think that we are being somewhat ungrateful to him because, having made a concession about shortening the Recess, he is finding that hon. Members on both sides of the House are pressing him to shorten it still further. He tried to imply that this was not a concession, but that the debate under Standing Order No. 9 had caused him to cut the Recess. He must be aware that that debate was of three hours' duration, while he has shortened the Recess by three days. I hope that he will not object, therefore, if I continue to call it a concession and assure him that we are grateful for it.
I never thought that the time would come when I would find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Some of his arguments convinced me a great deal. Certainly, there may have been a case for having long Recesses when we had a sound and capable Government in office. We could trust them to make the right decisions at the right times. I am referring to the old days, when Conservative Administrations were in power. At that time, we could go away for three or four weeks knowing that the economy was in safe hands and that the country was being steered on a straight and even course. We cannot do that in present circumstances. We can no longer afford to take that risk.
One reason why it is vital that we should not stay away for so long is because one cannot be convinced that the Government's economic measures will be steering us in the right direction during


the Recess. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said so eloquently, what will happen when the sacred cows come home to roost, and we find that the worms are turning, after all?
The Government have suggested that we should go away for a month while they work out the spheres in which expenditure should be cut. They will, we have been told, be looking at the issues of housing, schools, prescription charges and every aspect of Government spending. The Prime Minister said yesterday that we might come back a little earlier if he has worked out the programme. So the Government are asking us to go away for as long as they require to work out the spheres of public expenditure which should be slashed.
We have not been elected to go away while the Government make all the major decisions and present them to us when we return. The Government's suggestion is entirely unreasonable and I hope that the Leader of the House will give an assurance that he will shorten the Recess for the length of time that is required to enable us to take the necessary decisions, or at least offer our views, on these matters before the Government take their final decisions.
As the Leader of the House knows, there are many important and urgent issues which should be discussed and which can be discussed only if we return earlier. Consider, for example, the question of the amount of time available to hon. Members to discuss important Bills. Tomorrow, for one day, we will be debating the Transport Bill. It would be out of order for me to go into the rights and wrongs of that Measure, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, if we came back a week earlier, we could have two or three days in which to discuss a Bill which involves the spending, allocation or writing off of £1,922 million.
Is it fair and reasonable, when these large amounts of Government spending are being slashed, for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "We will have a month's Recess, but we can spare only one day in which to discuss this Bill?" After all, it is really seven Bills in one. Its result on Scotland could be devastating. It involves enormous sums. It is nonsense to allot one day to debate such

a Measure and then recess for nearly a month.
If we returned earlier we could have more reasonable hours of work in the House. Those who support a shorter Recess are not saying that hon. Members are lazy or that they intend to go away for three weeks' grand holiday. Almost every hon. Member will be spending a great deal of time at engagements and functions like businessmen's lunches, guild meetings, party meetings and all the other gatherings that go on. If we were to shorten the Recess we could make our working hours here more reasonable and proceed in a better way, instead of being a crowd of sleepyheads discussing major industries like the coal industry at 7 o'clock in the morning.
We should come back earlier to discuss the rather acute situation in the shipbuilding industry in the Clyde and the general industrial situation in Scotland. If we were to return earlier we could have at least one day to discuss this subject. Today, we have discussed the cancellation of a major shipbuilding contract, part of a total arms spending of £200 million. Is it not a tragedy that because the Christmas Recess will continue until 17th January we have time to discuss that decision, but no time at all to discuss its implications?
If the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) were accepted, we could come back to discuss the acutely serious job shortage in the Clyde shipyards. Today, more than 1,000 shipbuilding workers are unemployed in the Glasgow area alone and 100 men were told on Friday that their jobs will finish when a major Clyde job ends on 5th January. Two major shipbuilding yards in the Clyde Glasgow area are now each building their last ship. Apart from that, they have only some fitting out work.
It is right and proper that we should consider the implications of a decision to turn away work that could have guaranteed employment to about 600 men for three years. Should we not discuss the implications of the decision as well as the decision itself? I think that the Government's decision to turn away such work was irresponsible. One of our engineering works—Davy and United—tells us today of the loss of a major order as a consequence of the


Government's decision, which could result in the closing of its factory in Glasgow. Is it not madness to adjourn until 17th January, and not to have an opportunity to discuss an acutely dangerous situation in Glasgow and the dangerous state of affairs in the shipbuilding yards of the Clyde?
The Leader of the House has in some of his ideas shown a great deal of courage and imagination. For instance, he gave us morning sittings, for which I voted. I thought that they were sensible. Unfortunately, they have gone. The right hon. Gentleman has the imagination to think beyond the 17th January, to a radical reorganisation of our business which would ensure that we had more reasonable working hours and more time to discuss these important matters.
At the root of the Motion is the Government's feeling—and it has been the feeling of too many Governments— that the House of Commons can, in some ways, be a nuisance; that the Government's job is to run the country and to make decisions; that the Government's job is to take every little decision and to keep the House of Commons away while they are doing it. When the Government are appealing to industry, commerce and exporters to make a supreme effort at a time of crisis to the nation, it can be no encouragement to those forces for the Government to say that we should disband the House of Commons for about three and a half weeks. That is nonsense. Such a Recess would have a very bad effect on the country, and I hope that the Leader of the House will give serious consideration to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Fife, West.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I apologise for once more raising on the Adjournment Motion the subject of Greece, but it seems to be the habit of the colonels in Greece to cause consternation and rebellion when we are about to go into Recess. We should not adjourn until 17th January unless the Government give a number of assurances on the subject of the new régime in Greece.
The first assurance should be that no recognition will be accorded to the new regime before the House returns. I

understand that on the last occasion when the problem of recognition was raised, we were told that because the ambassador was accredited to the King, and since the King remained Head of State, no problem of recognition cropped up. That fiction, as fiction I think it was, has largely disappeared. The King is out of the country, and we do not have an ambassador accredited to the new Government.
I hope that very serious consideration will be given to this subject. For my own part, I hope that no recognition at all will be accorded and that no steps will be taken in that direction until the House is able to resume its business. This is important, because we should not act entirely by ourselves. Other nations will have to consider the same subject and nations, when according recognition, very often act in concert. I therefore hope that we shall not just make our own decision but will act in concert with other nations who also hold democracy and freedom dear.
We should not adjourn for so long unless we are given an assurance that during the Recess the Government will again give extremely urgent consideration to endorsing the reference already made by Scandinavian countries to the European Commission on Human Rights on the subject of the abrogation of certain civil liberties in Greece. I apprehend that the reference is on matters which are suspendable in emergency, and that the Government will have to consider whether adding their names to the reference may embarrass their influence in Athens. For about 30 years from the inception of the Greek nation in 1821 the ambassador was sending messages to the King, but all to no avail, until the King was overthrown by rebellion in Greece.
Thirdly, if we are to adjourn until 17th January we should have an assurance that the Government will give urgent consideration to making their own reference to the European Commission on Human Rights on the abrogation of Article 3 of the Convention, which relates to the torturing of political prisoners. During Question Time the Prime Minister has referred to barbarous methods of the present régime. I do not know whether he was referring to political methods or to the physical treatment of prisoners. I have had the opportunity of going to


Athens and speaking to political policemen there and to people who have interviewed those who have been to the police stations. I have heard stories, in the somewhat euphemistic words of a policeman, of prisoners who were not treated "softly". From other sources I have heard of people having their fingers broken in order to extract confessions from them. It is common knowledge that people detained on the islands are treated extremely badly, that they have no water supply and so forth. I hope that the Government will consider this with information they can obtain from reliable sources.
Article 3 of the Convention cannot be suspended, even in a state of emergency. I hope that if we are to remain in recess until 17th January the Government will find some means of making representation to the Human Rights Commission to add the right to be free from torture. I hope that the Government will consult with our N.A.T.O. allies about a concerted policy towards the junta in Greece. Greece is an extremely isolated country. Turkey cannot be relied upon as an ally of Greece. The Greek junta and the people of Greece are well aware that they stand alone in the Eastern Mediterranean and that they need the support of Western European states and the umbrella of N.A.T.O. They are likely to take note of a concerted view expressed by allies. It is not sufficient that each individual member of N.A.T.O.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not allowed to pursue that subject further on this Motion.

Mr. Fraser: May I abbreviate my remarks by asking that the time in the Recess shall be taken for a concerted representation to the junta? There is now a watershed in these affairs. Now that the King has left—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member ought not to pursue the subject of Greece on this Motion.

Mr. Fraser: I shall be extremely brief then, Mr. Deputy Speaker —

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not even briefly.

Mr. Fraser: —and ask that the currents should flow in the way of liberty.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. John Smith (Cities of London and Westminster): I have only one thing to say, but I want to say it several times. Of course we must come back earlier because we must address ourselves immediately to the most urgent task which has faced us for the past 30 years.
We have debated here the rights and wrongs of South Africa, it is suggested that we should debate Greece and Vietnam, and we have debated the rights and wrongs of Rhodesia; but we are like men arguing on a raft which is being swept out to sea. We have no influence whatever on these matters. We should address ourselves to the need to recover our influence; and we have no influence because we are weak. I do not mean weak in terms of military power, but commercially.
Unless we come back early and tackle this problem we shall be repeating the fatal errors of our predecessors here in the 1930s. They debated, with long Recesses, whether to add four squadrons more to the R.A.F. or no squadrons more; and all the time unimaginable forces were being built up against us abroad. In just the same way now, while we are trying to put the world to rights, unimaginable commercial forces are being built up against us abroad. We sit here—and, unless we tackle this in the new year, we shall continue to sit here—sniping and sneering at industry, which is the only thing which will bale us out.
Just as in the 1930s we needed military rearmament, we now need commercial rearmament. We do not now admire those pipe-smoking Governments of the 1930s. Our successors here will not admire us if we sit here, complaining about being insulted abroad, discussing new ways of spending more money on ourselves, and generally treating industry as the Billy Bunter—the fat boy—of Britain, greedy, stupid and good for a little bullying.
We succeeded in the past—both militarily and commercially, because one
depended upon the other—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not obvious to me how the hon. Gentleman's remarks are related to the length of the Recess.

Mr. Smith: I was a little out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is tremendously important that when we return we address ourselves to these problems and tackle them. When we return—earlier, I hope—we must change our own frame of mind towards the creation of wealth. We must respect, honour and emulate those who create it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not discussing what we should do when we return. We are discussing the date on which we should return.

Mr. Smith: The earlier we can tackle this the better. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was far too moderate in his proposal that we should reassemble on 8th January. We must tackle this problem immediately and create a new frame of mind in the country. We must start by trying to convert hon. Members opposite, so that we can polarise our own energies, and thus those of the country, as we did 30 years ago in a military sense. When we return, we must discuss how we can do that now in a commercial sense.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I want to make three points very briefly. First, I am concerned about the length of the Recess, and therefore support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), because I believe that the longer the Recess the greater will be the delay in establishing the Select Committee on Agriculture. As the Leader of the House knows, I raised this issue in a question on the Business Statement last Thursday, asking that the membership of this Select Committee should be announced very soon. I trust that there will be an early announcement of its membership. For me, the sooner the announcement is made the better, because the work of this Committee has already been delayed long enough since this Session started in November.
Why has there been this delay? Have the Government been embarrassed by the Report this Committee made last Session? Is there a problem over membership? As far as I can gather, hon. Members who served on the Committee last Session are ready and willing to start work on the Committee again. Last Session, the Committee did not start work

till well into the Session. It therefore had to compress its work into a very short timetable. I do not want the same to happen again this Session. If the work of these Committees is to be successful, as I believe that the Leader of the House wants it to be, and as many hon. Members on this side want it to be, it is vital that we be given sufficient time in which to do our work.
For this reason, for a start, I hope that we can return earlier so that, following the announcement of the setting up of the Committee, we will have more time in which to do our work. If the Leader of the House does not see eye to eye with me about this, I hope that he will consider allowing the Committee to work from Session to Session instead of its merely being appointed for the length of each Session.
My second point is also related to agriculture. We have already discussed the effects of devaluation on agriculture and the question of what measures the Government should take, but the Minister of Agriculture has so far brought forward hardly any definite proposals which would give the industry a lead for the role it is to play in our country's economy. He has said that an announcement will be made, that he may have something to say before the Recess, and so on, but there seems little prospect of that in the time left now. Therefore, I hope that the date of our return from the Christmas Recess can be brought forward so that the Minister of Agriculture will have more time and better opportunity to announce his proposals.
This is particluarly urgent for the livestock sections of the industry. We all know how things are moving in livestock farming, with the effects of foot-and-mouth disease, and so on, and we know that, as a result of the necessary restriction of imports of beef, for example, the price of meat in this country is tending to rise considerably, and it is likely to rise further early in the new year. The danger in this situation is that many farmers will be tempted, because of the higher prices, to market fat livestock which, perhaps, ought to be kept for increasing the size of the breeding herd.
Any delay in the Minister's announcement of measures to help the livestock industry, therefore, jeopardises its future


and the contribution which it can make by import savings not just in the next six months but in the next year or two. The industry will not respond to exhortations alone. We must have definite proposals from the Minister, and the sooner the better.
I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friends who have spoken about our situation in Scotland. Great concern has been expressed in the morning newspapers today about the circular from the Secretary of State telling local authorities to bring forward proposals for cuts in their expenditure programmes. It is vital that we have an opportunity to discuss in the House what these cuts are to be. There is no time between now and Thursday next. We should, therefore, come back earlier in order that hon. and right hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies may have an opportunity to debate this vital question.
What are the cuts to be? Are they to affect schools? Is the school-leaving age to be changed? Are the cuts to come on hospitals or on roads? All these are vital to Scotland. In the past, at times of economic stringency, the Secretary of State has assured us that Scotland would be excepted. He has not made good his assurance. Have we any better assurance this time that Scotland will have better treatment?
Apart from the question of local authority expenditure programmes, the state of industry and employment in Scotland today gives us great cause for concern. We must know what the Government's proposals are for development areas such as we have in Scotland, particularly at a time when so many economic difficulties have to be faced. In my constituency, unemployment is high and industrial activity is not nearly as great as many of us would like it to be. We want to hear as soon as possible what the Government's proposals are so that we may form a proper judgment on them.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby): May I put a question to the Leader of the House? During the past two days, we have had three different suggestions as to the date on which we should resume our duties in the new year.

The first date was 22nd January. It was then suggested that we should bring it forward to 17th January. Now we have the latest, and controversial, proposal from my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), that we should come back on 8th January.
In considering these matters, will my right hon. Friend consider the whole Parliamentary year and the arrangements for all Recesses? It seems ridiculous that, because the London of the seventeenth century—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought not to ask the Leader of the House to embark upon that subject in this limited debate about the length of the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Ogden: May I, then, take this particular example of the uncertainty of our Parliamentary Recess at Christmas? We have had three different dates suggested. Hon. Members have duties both at home in our constituencies and here in the House, duties which we try to fulfil as well as we are able. Uncertainty about the date of any Recess, but particularly this one, makes it difficult to fulfil our obligations to constituents.
If we came back one day earlier perhaps it would be possible through the Select Committee on Procedure or the usual channels, or in some other way, to have early discussions to decide how to spend our Parliamentary time and to divide up our Recesses through the whole year.

Mr. Grossman: It may save time if I tell my hon. Friend that about an hour ago I told another of my hon. Friends that the matter had already been dealt with in our procedure debate, and that the Select Committee on Procedure will be considering it.

Mr. Ogden: Perhaps my right hon. Friend could have said that a little earlier. If we had the internal broadcasting system that he wants, I might have known that. It will not be the first time that hon. Members have repeated each other because of temporary ignorance of what has happened in the Chamber. I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance. Some things get abroad much quicker than others, but the assurance he has given is welcome.

8.51 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: I find myself in the unusual position of supporting the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I do so because I should like to make one or two points that were forcibly brought to my notice in Scotland this morning.
The Leader of the House may be unaware of the full impact of the decisions of the past few days on the situation on Clydeside and throughout the development areas of Scotland. There is an onslaught against the progress which was being made in them, and we have been adversely affected by almost every piece of recent legislation. We are now expected to go away for a number of weeks without discussing to the full the implications of the most recent legislation brought before us.
There is to be a debate tomorrow on the Transport Bill, but I wonder whether it is understood that its implications will not be considered until the House reassembles. I should have thought that for that reason alone there was a powerful argument for considering its implications in detail and not to skate over them, as will be done in the debate tomorrow.
It is no use the Leader of the House frowning at me. I come from Clydeside, and I know what I am talking about. Last week, I spent two hours talking to the shop stewards. Perhaps the right hon. Gentlemen had the same opportunity when they came here a week ago today and pointed out that in one factory alone 700 men will become redundant because of the Government's policies before we return here. It is no consolation for men who will lose their jobs during that time to know that their political masters are in Recess, when they will undoubtedly consider that they should be here. I therefore support the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
I wish to make one further point on those redundancies. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has left the Chamber, because he mockingly suggested that 1st January would be an appropriate day to recall the House. Will he mock so readily when he knows that that is the date when those men will receive their redundancy notices? For as long as the position on Clydeside is as bad as it was represented to me this morning, when I

was there, it is the duty of the elected Members of the House to be here to discuss its problems. I should welcome our re-assembling a week earlier, as the Amendment suggests, because I believe that that would represent a true token of interest in the people to whom we pay lip service—none more so than many hon. Members opposite.
Do we remember, when we consider the effects on Clydeside of this disastrous decision yesterday, that only 25 per cent, of a ship is constructed in the yards? What about the 75 per cent, constructed in the small factories in my constituency, where redundancy again is already all too evident? I think of one factory employing 300 people to whom one boiler order might have made all the difference between redundancy and continued employment. Am I to go into recess and find, before my return, that these men will have been paid off, with no opportunity to bring their points forward in this House?
These are but a few instances of the redundancies taking place as a direct result of the policies of the Government. We know that worse is to follow and it will soon become apparent throughout the country. For these reasons, I support the Amendment.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. George Younger (Ayr): I hope that the Leader of the House will take the criticisms and suggestions made in the debate very seriously. I know that, before every Recess we have this debate. It is probably to some extent a traditional part of Parliamentary life when hon. Members suggest that the coming Recess should be shorter than planned by the Government. But I hope that, on this accasion, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that hon. Members are right in saying that this Recess is exceptionally inappropriate in length and that we should not be going away for as long as a month.
Indeed, it would be hard to think of a more inappropriate time for the House to go quietly off for a full month. I do not suggest that hon. Members do nothing during a Recess. There are many important things to be done. But surely the time of a national crisis, of all times, is a time when the House should be sitting and seen to be sitting to consider the problems facing the country.
It is just a month since the momentous and disastrous step of forced devaluation was taken by the Government and that means that it is probably six weeks since the decision was taken within the Government. By the time we come back on 17th January, two and a half months will have elapsed. It is in these two crucial weeks in January which are to take place before we come back during which we should, in all conscience, be here to discuss what should be done to put right the country's affairs.
This might be a most helpful thing for the Government. A great debate is going on, and will go on, about what is to be cut in Government expenditure to save the economic situation. Such debates are not uncommon within Governments and are usually accompanied by bitter bargaining between the Ministries. Would it not be immensely helpful to the Government to have the views of the House in some detail as to what the majority of hon. Members feel should bear the brunt and what the majority do not favour for bearing the brunt? Would it not give an indication to the Government in their difficult decisions if they knew the feelings of hon. Members? If the right hon. Gentleman ponders on that, he may feel that this point of view may appeal to the Government as well as to the back benchers.
There is the desirability to be flexible about the dates of a Recess. We get approximately one month at Christmas purely, because it is the custom, but, I was horrified by the Government s proposal that, at this time of all times, we should go away on a rather longer Recess than usual. I wondered whether the Government had even begun to realise what an incredible mess the country is in. Surely this is a time when we should throw aside the convention that we have a whole month for the Christmas Recess.
By all means let us balance it, if the Government so wish, by having a longer Recess at Easter, but surely this critical period, two months after devaluation with all these decisions piling up and the country wondering what is to go next, is a time when the House of Commons ought not quietly to sit back taking its ease.
I should like to add a brief plea in addition to what my hon. Friends have

already said so eloquently about the need to debate numerous aspects of the problems which face Scotland as a result of devaluation and the general slackness in the economy. What about prices? During the last three weeks more than 400 individual price increases in the shops in Scotland have been announced. Is not that a matter which the House should discuss? Should not time be given for us to give details and to get the Government's view about what should be done?

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. Would it not be courteous, now that the Leader of the House is here for a change, for him to listen to my hon. Friend's speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Leader of the House is always courteous and gives an example in courtesy to the House.

Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for trying to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to what I am saying.
These things are important and if we had time we could discuss the numerous price increases over the last few weeks, and I am certain that my concern is shared by every hon. Member. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government at least to come back a day earlier in order to discuss this subject. Surely that is not a revolutionary proposal, but is something which the Government should consider.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke of the circular which the Secretary of State for Scotland has sent to local authorities asking them to consider cutting back projects. Are we to leave that "lying on the Table", as it were, for a month without any chance for us to raise the problems which this circular will create for the local authorities in our constituencies? Are we to leave them to bargain privately behind the scenes with the Secretary of State at St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh, about what projects should or should not be touched? Are they to have no voice in Parliament, which is set up for the purpose of hearing the difficulties and grievances of people all over the country? Here is another reason why a day spent in debate of these subjects would be of benefit to everyone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) mentioned in great detail the problems facing industry on Clydeside with the loss of jobs directly attributable to the decision on South African arms which we discussed earlier, the loss of orders for equipment which will directly lead to the loss of jobs in an area where the unemployment rate is still nearly twice that of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) pointed out that we have still not had a debate on the White Paper on Fuel Policy, a debate which hon. Members have demanded week after week through the Session so far, and yet we are to go for a Recess of four weeks and still not be given time to discuss it.
The right hon. Gentleman may feel that this is all sound and fury, signifying very little, but I can tell him that not only the Government but the House of Commons is blamed when we are unable to discuss such things as this. If he were not in the Government, he would find that it was not just the Government but the House of Commons as a whole which got the blame. People all over the country ask why we are doing nothing about this, that or the other, and it is no use our saying that we cannot discuss that subject. They know that we are going off for four weeks' Recess and that it would be perfectly easy for the Government to give us an extra day or two to discuss these important subjects by arranging for the House to come back a little earlier. We cannot expect people to take lying down the fact that the people whom they elected are apparently prevented by this system from discussing these vital matters which affect all of them every day.
If the right hon. Gentleman could address himself to his primary duty as Leader of the House as the protector of the interests of back benchers, which is what the Leader of the House has always traditionally been, he would realise that there is combined pressure from back bench Members on both sides of the House to have the chance to come back even a few days earlier to discuss some of these vital matters. If we did that we would do a service not only to the Government, but to the cause of raising

the status of Parliament, something which we all want.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet): There have been many excellent speeches during the debate. I do not know whether I am more impressed with their eloquence, or the skill with which the orators kept their speeches within the bounds of order. This is one of the traditional exercises of this debate. There seems to be a pretty widespread school of thought on both sides of the Chamber that this Government should not be let out of our sight. I rather subscribe to the opposite school, that we cannot stand the sight of them any longer.
Nevertheless, the fact is that many points have been raised that are of considerable importance, and it is very impressive to see the array of problems— the Scottish problems, Clydeside, which was raised so frequently, the problems of the aircraft industry, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), Rhodesia, foot-and-mouth disease, Vietnam and many others, demonstrating how great are the responsibilities of this House and how great are the problems pressing in on our country and the present Government.
I want to pick out three points and put them to the Leader of the House. Several Members have spoken of the aircraft industry and defence. It is now widely believed that the Government have taken a decision to cancel the F111. A decision of this character would have a widespread effect upon our whole defence arrangements. It would be entirely wrong to announce this at a time when Parliament was not sitting. If the decision has been taken I am quite certain that, with this Government, it will not remain a secret for very long, although they might wish it to do so.
I should like the Leader of the House to ensure, if such a decision has been taken, that it will be announced to the House before we rise, or that it will not be announced during the Parliamentary Recess.
My second point is to do with the state of the economy which has been referred to in a large number of speeches, particularly from this side of the House, starting with the initial speech of my hon.


Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). There is no doubt at all about the urgency of the economic problems. We can see quite clearly, looking at the present state of affairs, that the world-wide ripples caused by the British sterling devaluation are still spreading.
The constant flurries in the gold market, the uncertainty hanging over every other currency, the inability to deal in a number of important currencies, the fact that £ sterling in forward dealings is still extremely weak, are all pointers to this. The truth is that the whole international monetary situation has been gravely disturbed by British devaluation and the other sad truth is that even this act of devaluation has not restored the measure of confidence in sterling we want to see.
This will be restored only when the Government have announced measures about which they are constantly talking, particularly the measures of retrenchment. In passing I might say that it is conclusive proof of the fact that devaluation was not a deliberate act, but one so forced upon the Government that they were totally unprepared to announce the necessary consequential action. It is becoming more urgent every day and the more the Government make threatening noises about the dreadful things they are:o do, the more damage is done. Day by day we are seeing a flight out of money into equity shares, property, goods in the shops and every way people can turn their money into goods before the blow falls upon them.
This is doing great damage and will continue to do so until the Government make their announcement. As I understand it the Prime Minister gave an undertaking that none of these things would be announced until the House reassembled. That means that nothing can be announced until the House reassembles, upon the Government plan, on 17th January. This is a very long time and it may be that the Government cannot do it any earlier, they cannot make up their minds any earlier. In settling the day of reassembly as 17th January, and committing themselves to making no announcement before that date, they are taking a very grave risk with our economy. This should be noted.
The third point which I wish to make is about Rhodesia. This is a matter to

which we on this side of the House attach very great importance indeed. I reiterate our conviction that there must be made now, and urgently, a final attempt to reach a solution by agreement. Time is getting very short indeed. Whatever we may feel in the House, I believe that there is a widespread suspicion in the country and in Africa about the Prime Minister's intentions. There is a wide spread suspicion that something of a decisive character may be done or announced during the Recess. I wish to press the Leader of the House particularly on this matter. Can he give a firm undertaking that the Government will not use the occasion—I hope that he will be able to answer it, if I may have his attention for a moment; I have asked for it only once—

Mr. Crossman: I will deal with the point.

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Would he make it clear that no action will be taken during the Recess to bring the negotiations with Rhodesia to an end and that no major change of policy on Rhodesia will be made without the House being recalled? We on this side of the House attach the utmost importance to receiving a very firm assurance on those two points.
This has been an excellent debate. I do not wish to weary the House by making further points. Wide-ranging points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I am sure that the Leader of the House will endeavour to answer all of them. I put to him, first, the point about the F111 and an announcement; secondly, the urgency of measures to cope with our economic difficulties; and, thirdly, and very specifically, the undertakings for which I asked on Rhodesia.

9.12 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I, too, think that this has been an interesting debate. It has taken its normal course. I will try to answer as precisely as I can all the points put to me. I will deal, first, with the three points made by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and take the others subject by subject.
No decision has been taken concerning the F111 aircraft. I do not think that there is any question of announcing a decision during the Recess. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained, before the decision to return a week earlier, that, if necessary, Parliament would be recalled. If we were to make a decision which could be announced earlier, we would recall Parliament to make it earlier, if possible. We want to announce the measures on the economic situation as soon as we can.
A number of hon. Members put to me the problem of cuts, and what their attitude to them would be. I would agree that it is absolutely vital for the Government to have the cuts seen in the light of the views of the House, and, as hon. Members urge, when the decisions are taken, and when the cuts are announced we shall have to have them debated. I should have thought that it was better to wait for the announcement and then to debate it than to debate the situation before the announcement. That is my reply to the hon. Members for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), who said, rightly, that debate is helpful, but it is more helpful when we have something concrete to debate. I therefore ask them to bide their time with a certain amount of patience.
The right hon. Member for Barnet asked about Rhodesia. I think that I can give a quite unequivocal assurance that there will be no basic change of policy on Rhodesia, and certainly no sudden or abrupt breaking off of the possibility of negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary made a very clear statement on the situation and expressed a pessimistic view about the possibilities of an improvement, but, as the right hon. Gentleman noticed, he did not close the door. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like me to say again that he is determined not to close the door from this end. It will not be from our end that the last chance is gone. I give that assurance.
I turn to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), and supported by the hon. Member for Glasgow,

Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) to the effect that we should return a week earlier. It is an interesting proposal. The implication in the suggestion, that it was hypocrisy to urge increased productivity if we did not increase the number of our debates, seemed to be that hon. Members did nothing when they left this place. It was suitably answered by several hon.
Members—

Mr. William Hamilton: I went out of my way to make it clear that I did not suggest that.

Mr. Crossman: In that case, I misunderstood as much as three other hon. Members. The impression was created that our only productivity lay in our debates. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean that. If he did not mean it, he was supported by several hon. Members who pointed out that when hon. Members leave this place they have many jobs to do outside, and are not judged only by the number of times that they speak in the Chamber.
I was asked a number of questions about procedure, and I was grateful for the kind remarks that were made about it. It was suggested that we should postpone the Recess to settle our annual timetable. I again say that this is something which cannot be reformed fast. We shall ask the Select Committee on Procedure to consider it again, because it depends on the time of our annual party conferences in October. At least a year would be required, therefore, before any change could be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West made some good suggestions about the need to discuss such things as the Report of the Committee on Science and Technology and that of the Committee on Agriculture. I am considering—I would like advice on this—at what point the debate is best conducted on a big report like that of the Committee on Science and Technology. Should we do it straight away, or should we wait for the Minister to make his departmental answer before having the debate?
I am sometimes tempted to say that we should allow the Minister to answer quickly, because the report is of interest when it is first issued. On the other hand, the debate should be better, and


better conducted, if we waited for the official White Paper from the Department which is criticised. I fancy that we shall take the second course with the report of the Specialist Committee on Science and Technology, because it is a formidable document and I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power wants to make a reasonable reply to the Committee. I would suggest that the time to discuss the Report of that Specialist Committee would be following that reply.
The hon. Member for Cathcart, who was very polite, said that he would like to have two days of debate on the Transport Bill. Some of us, also, would like that. At one time I made suggestions for it, but they did not materialise. I agree with the hon. Member that it would have been good if we could have had two days of debate. On the other hand, I can only reply to the hon. Member that, as I said on the business statement, I am sure that he, like me, feels that with a Bill as important as this we must not waste the opportunity for Committee.
The great advantage of our getting the Second Reading tomorrow will be that we will be able to get straight into the Committee stage—and have an extra week in Committee—which we have arranged for the hon. Member when he returns from the Recess. I know that he longs to be in the Committee working line by line to improve one of the most important Measures to be put before the House. We know that his constructive mind will be working on improvements to the Bill day and night, probably more by night than by day. I am looking forward to it.
Many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Barnet, referred to the problems of shipbuilding and unemployment. I will certainly communicate with my right hon. Friends and tell them of the urgency and importance which was felt by hon. Members, on that subject.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) asked about the grave situation in Glasgow, or, it may be, throughout Scotland, owing to the possession of offensive weapons being, as I learned tonight for the first time, twice, as great in 1966 as in 1965. One always learns a great deal by listening to a debate of this kind.
We, south of the Border, are not always as educated as we can be about what

happens in the part of Britain which matters. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He tells me that he is fully apprised, as I knew he was, of the situation, that special studies are being made and he did not need to be reminded of it. The matter is in hand and is being dealt with in the usual vigorous way of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I turn now to three foreign affairs matters which were raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) asked about the Common Market negotiations. I have learnt from the Foreign Office that there will be a statement on this subject tomorrow by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, because the conclusions have now been reached. It is too early to say exactly what they are, but I gather that Herr Brandt will be seeing our Ambassador later this evening, and that the matter is being discussed in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to make a statement to the House about the situation tomorrow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) asked about the situation in British Honduras and the state of negotiations for some form of association with Guatemala. He asked for assurance that nothing final will be done without the House being consulted. I have asked the Commonwealth Office, and I have been told that it will be safe for me to reply on the following lines. Since I am not personally deeply conversant with this subject, I shall read aloud the following statement from the Department:
 I am not aware that any decision is to be taken on the future of British Honduras during the Recess. My hon. Friend can rest assured that this House will have an opportunity to consider any change of status for the Colony.
With that, my hon. Friend should rest content.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) that I share his deep emotional attachment to Greece. I cannot add much to what the Prime Minister said. It is still too early to decide whether we recognise that Government or not. No action of any kind is being taken by the Embassy to prejudge that issue by any form of de facto recognition. The matter is being kept, in that sense, on ice. We must await


exactly what is happening in that country before a decision is taken. I echo what the Prime Minister said about the bravery of the King and the disappointment that some of us felt on the lack of success of his efforts to restore the constitution to Greece.
I will discuss with the Foreign Secretary the matter of the European Commission on Human Rights and the problem of torture.
Turning to the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fair), my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be making a statement on Thursday. He wants to give the latest information possible to the House before the Recess. I think that, if I touch wood, I can say that the situation is easing slightly, and that by Thursday we may be able to go away with less anxiety than we had a fortnight ago about this epidemic.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns raised the subject of the Select Committee on Agriculture being restored. I must apologise to him because I was talking to the Chief Whip, as I wanted to get a firm answer about it. I, too, would like to see it restored. We have been increasing its size and changing the quorum. I am hoping that we can get the names down before the Recess, but, if not, it will be done immediately upon our return. I am as keen as he is to see that Committee going. There is no ground for suggesting that we are afraid to see the Committee functioning. Otherwise, we would not have resurrected it for a second year. We are keen to see it doing its job, but we want to be sure, in enlarging it through proper channels, that we get the right Members on it.
The statement on the livestock industry is one to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture referred in his speech in the debate on agriculture. I have not been able to check with him, but I assume, since he said he would make it, that he will be making it on Thursday, too. I entirely agree—and here I must declare a personal interest— that anybody concerned with livestock knows that we must have a statement on the future of the industry before Christmas if people are not to make

drastic decisions about sales which will prejudice the national herd during the period immediately ahead.

Mr. Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the point that I raised?

Mr. Crossman: I have put together the foreign affairs matters, but I regret that I have left out the Vietnam problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) asked about Vietnam and wanted an explicit assurance that if there were an escalation of events in Vietnam, or, for instance, an American invasion of North Vietnam, we would recall the House. In our last debate on the Christmas Adjournment I gave that assurance unequivocally. I give the assurance again that the House will, of course, be recalled if a situation of that gravity develops.

Mr. Winnick: I also asked my right hon. Friend whether any sort of pressure was being applied by our Government on the Americans not just to discontinue the bombing for one or two days, but whether there would be a permanent—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is outside this debate.

Mr. Crossman: I was trying to answer my hon. Friend's Question about the Recess. I have given an assurance about that. I think that what he has just asked is a matter of policy, rather than a question of the business of the House.
The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) asked again about Rhodesia, and I can repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman says that this may be the last opportunity for us to influence the Rhodesians through negotiation. It is also possible that the Rhodesian affair could be influenced by there being no negotiations, but I repeat the assurance which I have given, that there will be no major change in Rhodesian policy during the Recess, and without consultation with the House.

Mr. Goodhew: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if there is no negotiation, and Rhodesia declares, herself a republic, this Parliament will fail thereafter to have any influence whatsoever on future constitutional arrangements in that country?

Mr. Grossman: I gave the assurance that there would be no major change of policy by the Government here. I cannot make predictions about major changes of policy by the purporting Government in Rhodesia. I cannot give that assurance, but I have given the assurance that a major change of policy here is something that we shall not have without consulting the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East asked about the crisis in the Press, and the increase in the newsprint crisis, and the effect of this on newspaper prices. This is being looked at carefully. I expect that during the Recess something might happen in the newspaper industry which will reduce the risk which my hon. Friend mentioned, that of one of I he newspapers going out of circulation. I am not at liberty to say what will happen, but it is likely that during the Recess the newspapers will respond to the crisis by measures which will reduce the risk of the weaker papers going out of circulation.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I hope that the light hon. Gentleman will give the assurance for which I asked, namely, that if there is a change in the leadership of the party opposite the House will be recalled to discuss the new situation.

Mr. Crossman: I have to admit that in my reply I have tried to avoid otiose repetition by not replying to what I regard as facetious comments which are unworthy of hon. Members.
That concludes what I have to say, and I hope that the House will now be content—

Mr. Roebuck: My right hon. Friend spoke of certain measures relating to the Press which he hopes will be taken. What will be the situation if they are not? Are there any plans to come back and debate the matter in that event?

Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to say that we do not have to take that precaution. I give the assurance that it is in the highest degree unlikely that any newspaper will go out of circulation during the Recess. If one does, my hon. Friend can hold me responsible for failing to summon the House for that purpose.
With that explanation, I would like the House to allow us to go into recess. Mr. Speaker, you have reduced the period

of the Recess by one week by acceding, to the demands made under Standing Order No. 9, and so have enabled us to rearrange our business in a way which I see is pleasurable to hon. Members, and I shall be back a week early to have the pleasure of their company.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles (Winchester): I hope that it is in order, at the end of the debate, to add one additional reason why we should return early from our Recess. It is to discuss the whole broad subject of our relationship with Australia, the loss of whose Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Holt, will be keenly regretted by many hon. Members.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday, do adjourn till Wednesday, 17th January.

WAYS AND MEANS

TERMINATION OF EXPORT REBATES"

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That it is expedient to terminate export rebates, and to make further provision as respects cases in which export rebates remain payable, but that any provision about export rebates must apply in the same way to all descriptions of goods.'—[Mr. Howie.]

Mr. Iain Macleod (Enfield, West): There are two Resolutions in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, in due course, if we agree to them, a Bill will be brought in. I merely wish to make it clear that we on this side do not regard it as expedient to terminate export rebates and we have a number of questions which we will want to put about the timing and the effects on contracts which have been entered into.
On the second Resolution, on Selective Employment Payments, which will come under the same Bill, again we are anxious about the impact on the development areas and the grey areas, and about many aspects of timing, but the House will probably agree that, rather than have a debate upon the Resolutions, it would be wise to await the Bill and make the position and indeed the opposition of this side of the House clear at that point.

9.33 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I welcome what I think is the practical attitude of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) in restraining his argument until he can freely deploy it without being within so narrow a rule of order as on a Ways and Means Resolution. This is why I did not deploy the case for this Resolution.

Question put and agreed to.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS

Motion made, and Question,

That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session amending the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, it is expedient to terminate the additions to the refund of selective employment tax which are payable under paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1(1) of the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, and to terminate the corresponding part of payments under section 3 of that Act, and that any provisions made in pursuance of this resolution may contain exceptions for cases where the relevant establishment is situated within a development area, or the employment is employment at or from places situated within a development area, and may authorise the additions to the refund of tax, or corresponding payments, to be continued after a change in the development areas, but that in other respects those provisions must apply in the same way to all descriptions of establishments, employers and employments.

In this resolution ' development area' has the same meaning as in section 26 of the Finance Act 1967—[Mr. Harold Lever]—put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means motions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Crosland, Mr. Gunter, Mr. Diamond, and Mr. Harold Lever, upon the Resolution and upon the Ways and Means Resolution come to this day.

REVENUE

Bill to reduce the amount of certain payments under the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966 with exceptions for development areas, and to terminate export rebates, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 59.]

UNEMPLOYMENT, RUTHERGLEN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I begin by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for making it possible for me to make these remarks tonight. I am grateful to you in view of the difficulties which we experienced when I was not able last week to make the speech which I wish to make now.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the whole question of unemployment in my constituency. The unemployment figures in my area have been growing for some time and I hope that, when the Minister replies, I will be given at least a little encouragement about the future for the people of Rutherglen, and particularly for those who are at present unemployed.
It is on this issue that, for possibly the first time, I have had the complete backing of my whole constituency. The town council, the trades council, and every shade of political opinion, Labour and Conservative alike, have asked me to raise this matter. All are extremely anxious and concerned about it and want to do everything that they possibly can to reduce the difficulties being faced by the people of my constituency, particularly during the Christmas and New Year period, as the Secretary of State for Scotland well knows.
My interest in raising this subject is not simply because I wish to talk about unemployment, though that is bad enough in itself. I wish also to draw attention to the number of firms which have closed in the past year in Rutherglen. Without wishing to labour the point, it might be for the convenience of the Minister if I were to outline briefly the sort of firms which are vanishing from the scene in Rutherglen.
A small but useful company dealing in gardening services, Kirkintilloch Gardening Services—admittedly, not the sort of articles that hit the headlines of the national newspapers—used to provide 17 much-needed jobs in the area. When that firm had to close, the loss of those jobs


was greatly regretted by many people. The second firm to close, was Donald Clerk Ltd., of Rutherglen. This had been an old, well-established firm in the area and for many years had provided jobs in the constituency. In all, 140 jobs were lost when that firm closed. It closed primarily because of amalgamations and take-overs. At a time when we hear a lot about monopoly control and take-over bids, it may be noted that this was a classic example of a firm being taken over and a number of jobs being lost as a result.
The third important firm to close in Rutherglen in the last year was a subsidiary company of Stewarts and Lloyds, now under the control of the National Steel Corporation. It was called Weldings, Fittings and Flanges and, when it went, 230 jobs went with it. From time to time I have raised with the Board of Trade the question of a paperworks in my constituency. However, this paper mill—S.C.W.S. Paper Mill—closed and, again, it had been established for many years in the area. People had given a lifetime of service to the company and, when it closed, 54 jobs went by the board.
I regret having to catalogue these instances of closure, but it is important that the matter be got in perspective, for in addition to speaking about unemployment I wish to emphasise the loss of employment opportunities in my constituency. The fifth firm, Associated Chrome Chemicals Ltd., went as a result of a decision taken some time ago. It happened before the present Government came to power and we are having to suffer for the misdeeds of the past. The decision to close this company in Scotland was taken in 1964; prior to the election when the Labour Party came to power. It was decided at that time to rationalise the business, and it was transferred to Yorkshire. We in Rutherglen were the first to suffer when the first phase of the closure of this company took place. Several stages are involved in the closure but, in all, the loss of this firm represents the loss of 237 jobs.
In addition to these jobs being lost, as a result of closures generally, there have been 139 redundancies in my constituency caused, in the main, by short-time working in the furniture-making trade and so on. A considerable number

of people in furniture making and the steel industry are on short time. If one adds to the total, which is already an unhappy one, the fact that a number of people who live in the Burgh of Rutherglen and who used to find their employment in Glasgow are unable to find as much work there as in days gone past, it makes a very depressing picture and one that calls for fairly drastic action.
Over the year as a whole we have lost a lot of jobs, and we now have about 1,157 unemployed. I concede to my right hon. Friend that this is by no means the highest unemployment figure we have ever had. It was much higher in 1962 and 1963, and in the early part of 1964. Nevertheless, it presents a very depressing picture, and one that it is right we should now discuss.
It would be an impertinence for me to rehearse the various difficulties experienced by unemployed people. Those difficulties are well known to us all. We all feel very deeply about them, particularly those of us on this side of the House. Many of us regard the reduction of unemployment as our first priority. We have thought about the problem most of our working lives, and the idea of even one person behing unemployed is abhorrent to us all. Nor shall I discuss the miseries for the wives and families of unemployed men, and their particular difficulties at this time of year. That aspect, too, is well known to all of us. It is a soul destroying prospect for a man—or for a woman—who has skill and talent, and is anxious to work, keep a roof over his head and look after his family, to be deprived of the right to do so.
Things are more especially difficult, as I am sure many of us will appreciate, for those who are over 50 years of age. These people have often given a working life of service to one particular industry. That is true of those who worked for very many years with Associated Chrome Chemicals. They became very skilled in that type of work and were regarded by the company as skilled people, but once the works were closed, it was found that the skills and talents built up over many years were not required in other industries. At that time of a man's life it is not so easy for him to adapt himself to other skills in another job. It can truthfully be said of such people that


the longer they have been working in one industry the more likely they are to find it difficult to move into something else.
Some of the difficulties I have mentioned are due to policies that are being pursued by the Government. That is perhaps particularly true of hire purchase in relation to the electrical appliances and furniture industries. But that is by no means the sole, or even the main, reason for the present unemployment in Rutherglen. The main reason is that, in a sense, Rutherglen is a microcosm of a development area. Our industries, which once made a very substantial contribution to the economic wellbeing of Scotland, are of the older type well known to my Scottish hon. Friends. We have depended very heavily on wire making, rope making, steel fittings of one kind and another, paper making, and so on. Some of these industries are now either dying out or are coming to the end of their useful working life. When demand is high and the economy is booming companies are prepared to keep some of these firms working even though they are not the most modern, but when things become a little slack these projects are closed down. This is happening in Rutherglen at present.
One of the main reasons for my raising this issue tonight is that when things improve—one can see various trends and from statements by the Board of Trade and the Treasury it appears that things will pick up perhaps next August—when demand picks up and the economy starts moving upwards, the industries in my constituency which I have mentioned will have closed their doors and there will be no prospect of their opening again because of the many difficulties involved.
I have outlined to the Front Bench a long and rather miserable tale of closures, but the more difficult part will come next year. I have referred to the movement of Associated Chrome Chemicals from Rutherglen to Yorkshire, but a second move is taking place next year when we shall lose more jobs. In the next few weeks we shall lose Stewart and Lloyds, which is a firm well known to all my Scottish colleagues. It is closing in February with the possible loss of 300 jobs. That company is under the control of the National Steel Cor-

poration. I understand the justification by the Corporation to close those works is that the projects may be rationalised and its plants modernised so that they can continue to do business perhaps in other places. That will bring many difficulties, particularly to those who have worked in the firm for many years.
I have often heard it said by people who work in steel making in Scotland that there may be a number of such closures over the next 10 years. The Minister of Power has been concerning himself with the closure of pits and introducing measures to deal with redundant miners by provisions for pensions and training. The same kind of situation will perhaps develop in the steel industry, so we should be prepared to do something to help these people. These are some of the difficulties over closures in Rutherglen at present. We see very little prospect of anything new coming to the burgh in the next few years. It may be that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will indicate the sort of measures the Government have been taking to assist areas such as mine which have been hard hit by closures or other difficulties mainly because of the Government's concern about re-structuring industry in Scotland.
I would be the first to support the Government in saying that regional employment premium, investment grants and loans have been very helpful to many parts of Scotland. It is a truism that had it not been for some of the action taken by the Government in the last few years to deal with this situation unemployment might have been a great deal higher than it is at present, but these measures, useful though they have been in Scotland and other development areas, have not been of particular value to Rutherglen. There we have had little in the way of assistance by grants and loans.
The Secretary of State may also say that there will be work in the course of the next few months arising in Glasgow and Lanarkshire because of the measures the Government have taken to build advance factories, to open up estates for new projects of one kind or another, and the training facilities which are now available in Lanarkshire as a whole. I welcome all these measures which have


been used to assist in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, but they are not of great value to those who work in Rutherglen.
I know of the Government's point about studies in transportation. One of the most important things happening in the West of Scotland is a greater Glasgow transportation study. Although I could not pre-judge the findings of this body, I will say that one of the recommendations will undoubtedly be that travelling should be kept down to the bare minimum. We in Rutherglen would welcome this, because we have no desire for our people to move to other parts of Lanarkshire or into Glasgow to find work. We do not want to become a dormitory suburb of Glasgow. We were once a very thriving community in our own right. We want to stay this way.
Therefore, we cannot accept a repetition of the process whereby vital communities such as ours, which were built up by time and by much capital equipment, are allowed to lie as economic by-waters in the way of industrial movement determined primarily by short-term considerations.
Rutherglen is a very fine town. It is well built. It is well served in the way of social services of various kinds. We want these services to be used. We want the town to be used. We make an urgent appeal that it should not become a dormitory suburb of Glasgow. It is encouraging to hear of all the areas which are getting various facilities from the Government. We are delighted about this but we should like some of the cake for ourselves. We hear about what is going on in the new towns. Of course we are delighted that there is a build up in East Kilbride and Cumbernauld, but we think that there is a substantial case for something being done for some of the older communities such as Rutherglen.
Briefly, we want Government projects which will provide work for our people. We want something done for our older workers, perhaps an interchange from the older industries in which they have worked to some of the newer science-based industries about which we hear so much nowadays. A number of buildings in Rutherglen have been left vacant over the past year. These could profitably be used by other organisations which might want to establish themselves in the West of Scotland. Could not a survey be made

of these under-utilised buildings and of the land which has been made available because some of the people who formerly occupied the buildings have left?
We have pressed various Government Departments—the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Scottish Development Department—on the possibility of siting an inland contained port within Rutherglen. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will study this problem. Rutherglen has a lot of advantages and much to offer. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for coming to answer this debate. We in Rutherglen are very worried about our position and we trust that we can be given some encouragement to hope that there will be some future for us.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that we are debating the question of employment in Rutherglen. Does he wish to speak to that?

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: I think that it is appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that I should intervene for a minute or so, as it is from Rutherglen and Glasgow that many of my constituents have come under the Glasgow overspill agreement. At a time when we hear of a great deal going wrong, or supposedly going wrong, we should from time to time comment on what is going right.
I wish to draw attention to the success of the Glasgow overspill scheme as it affects the Burgh of Whitburn and other places in West Lothian. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, is criticised from time to time about this, that or the other, he could well bear in mind that there is a remarkable success story in the whole overspill agreement and the bringing of industry to the West Lothian area. It is right that this should be said. In Whitburn, we have a community which is growing fast, and growing fast because of the many skilled people who are brought in from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and elsewhere.
I think it appropriate to draw attention to one worry which my hon. Friend the


Member for Rutherglen and I have in common, and that is, our worry about the future of the paper industry. The industry is concentrated in Central Scotland, and, although I do not wish to take up more time on the details of the matter, this being a debate about Rutherglen and not about the paper trade, I think it right that some of us should voice concern about the state of affairs in the industry which is well known to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, whom we greatly respect.

9.57 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) will understand my view of the matter which he has raised when I say that this is the seventh approach that I have had during the past few months from various deputations from parts of Lanarkshire about the industrial development which is required there to ensure that we get rid of unemployment and return to full employment. We are always glad to receive these representations, and we do our best to make sure that they are properly considered so that we can set developments going which will provide the full employment we all wish to see.
My hon. Friend has raised several questions about individual concerns, such as the Associated Chemical Companies, Stewarts and Lloyds, and the Eastfield paper works. We quite understand the difficulties which will arise if these various rundowns, if I may put it like that, in industrial employment come along, and we fully appreciate the difficulties which we shall have to face in providing alternative work. However, I do not wish to go into individual cases in this debate. We can deal better with individual cases in consultation with the firms concerned and with the Members of Parliament interested.
The problem we have to face in the Board of Trade is that, in the area of which my hon. Friend has spoken, we have to provide about 1,000 new jobs. It would create a false impression if we tried to convey the idea that this part of Lanarkshire is a run-down area. There are many schemes coming along which, if properly developed and exploited, can provide the employment which is needed

to ensure that in this part of Scotland at least we provide something like full employment in the way that we measure full employment in our general statistics.
Rutherglen has a very important historical industrial record. It is placed on the outskirts of Glasgow, near to the North Lanarkshire industrial area and there is a number of jobs in prospect—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

Mr. Darling: Industrial development certificates are being provided in this area and industrial projects are coming along. I agree that the Government must provide the climate for industrial development to come, and that we must give confidence to the industrialists concerned that there will be a profitable outcome to their enterprises. If all those circumstances are provided, as I am sure that they will be, then the industrial projects which we have in mind, and to which we have given our support, will more than cover the unemployment in the area at present.
But we must face the situation that places like Blantyre, Bellshill and the other industrial estates round about must provide facilities for travelling to work. We cannot make absolutely certain that all the activities will take place in the Burgh of Rutherglen, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish that to happen.
We are trying to develop industrial estates within the neighbourhood of Rutherglen as best we can. There is now no difficulty about acquiring the land. We can go ahead with the advance factories and build Board of Trade factories. We can give all the help needed to ensure that industrial enterprises get off the ground and develop within the general area of the outskirts of Glasgow and further into the Lanarkshire.
Our real problem at present is how to get industrial development going in South Lanarkshire, in the areas that depended in the past entirely on coal mining, and where there are no other industrial developments unless the Board of Trade steps in to provide advance factories and


try to get firms to go to those areas. But we are now considering the problem of North Lanarkshire, and we shall give all the assistance we can to ensure that there is no continuing unemployment there.
My hon. Friend raised a number of questions. I do not want to go into detail about Ronald Lyon (Estates) and Taylor Woodrow Industrial Estates, which have sites in Rutherglen, where we are giving all the help we can to see that there is a combination of public and private enterprise to provide the industrial estate developments that we all want.
My hon. Friend mentioned the case of the Associated Chemical Companies. There are certain points here which I am willing to discuss with him. I do not think that it would be helpful if we discuss them in public. I think that we can get the enterprise connected with Associated Chemical Companies going.
My hon. Friend also asked whether we could provide an inland container terminal to serve Glasgow, and suggested that the best place to site it is in Rutherglen. That is not entirely a matter of parochial pride, because Rutherglen is one of the sites that we have under consideration on purely economic grounds and not merely to satisfy his desire to

have it in his constituency. We will keep this under examination and I shall keep in touch with my hon. Friend and tell him, bearing in mind that a number of sites are in competition with each other, whether Rutherglen will be selected.
We appreciate the problems my hon. Friend has raised and sympathise with his desire to get more industrial developments going in Rutherglen so that the problem of unemployment can be completely eliminated. We in the Government will use our powers to the full to assist in suitable projects which come along in that part of Scotland. We shall continue to do all we can to bring the facilities that are being offered to the notice of all inquiring industrialists on all appropriate occasions, so that we can provide the industrial development certificates and the financial inducements to fulfil what my hon. Friend asks—the appropriate industrial development in the Rutherglen area and, I repeat, to ensure that unemployment is driven out of that part of Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Ten o'clock.